Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-02142/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-02142-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 20:1400 Civil Rights of Handicapped Child

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAUL EMMANUEL PONCE, III, and CASE NO. CV F 09-2142 LJO SMS

ISRAEL ENRIQUE PONCE,

Plaintiffs, ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS (Doc. 10)

vs.

CLOVIS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Defendant.

 /

INTRODUCTION

Defendant Clovis Unified School District (“District”) moves to dismiss the first amended

complaint (“FAC”) filed by plaintiffs Raul Emmanuel Ponce, III (“R.P.”) and Israel Enrique Ponce

(“I.P.”) (collectively “plaintiffs”). Plaintiffs, minors proceeding in propria persona, assert claims

pursuant to Cal. Ed. Code §56505, the Individuals with Disabilities Act, 20 U.S.C. §1415 (“IDEA”), and

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §794 (“Section 504"). In a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)

motion, District moves to dismiss plaintiff’s FAC on grounds that the minor plaintiffs lack the capacity

to sue, and plaintiffs’ non-attorney parents cannot bring an action on behalf of their children without

retaining an attorney. In addition, District argues that plaintiffs fail to state a claim, and move for a more

definition statement of plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). For the following reasons,

this Court GRANTS District’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend and with instructions.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs’ three-paragraph FAC provides little detail as to the basis of their federal and state

claims. From the FAC, the Court can determine the following facts:

Plaintiffs are brothers who are District elementary school students. This action is a joint appeal

of two decisions of the California Office of Administrative hearings (OAH). Plaintiffs appeal a

1

Case 1:09-cv-02142-LJO -SKO Document 21 Filed 03/10/10 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

September 9, 2009 findings and decision issued by Administrative Law Judge Darrel Lepkowsky in

R.P.’s administrative action, and an October 19, 2009 findings and decision issued by Administrative

Law Judge Charles Marson in I.P.’s administrative action.

In the third paragraph of the complaint, plaintiffs request time to file second amended complaint

by February 4, 2010. The FAC is signed byRaul Ponce, Jr. and Ana Bustos-Ponce “Representatives for

Plaintiffs.” Plaintiffs did not file a second amended complaint.

On February 9, 2010, District moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ FAC. Plaintiffs failed to oppose this

motion, and District filed no reply. Having considered the FAC and District’s arguments, this Court

finds this motion suitable for a decision without a hearing. Accordingly, this Court vacates the March

15, 2010 hearing on this motion pursuant to Local Rule 230(g) and issues the following order. 

DISCUSSION

Pleading And Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) Motion Standards

A motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is a challenge to the sufficiency of the

pleadings set forth in the complaint. A Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal is proper where there is either

a “lack of a cognizable legal theory” or “the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal

theory.” Balisteri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). In considering a motion

to dismissfor failure to state a claim, the court generally accepts as true the allegations of the complaint,

construes the pleading in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, and resolves all

doubts in the pleader's favor. Lazy Y. Ranch LTD v. Behrens, 546 F.3d 580, 588 (9th Cir. 2008).

To survive a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief

that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007).

“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129

S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). “The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it

asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550

U.S. at 556). “Where a complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability,

it ‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility for entitlement to relief.” Id. (quoting

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). 

2

Case 1:09-cv-02142-LJO -SKO Document 21 Filed 03/10/10 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

“While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual

allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more

than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”

Twombly, 550 U.S. 554,127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (internal citations omitted). Thus, “bare

assertions...amounting to nothing more than a ‘formulaic recitation of the elements’...are not entitled to

an assumption of truth.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1951 (quoted in Moss v. United States Secret Serv., 2009

U.S. App. LEXIS 15694, *14 (9th Cir. 2009)). A court is “free to ignore legal conclusions, unsupported

conclusions, unwarranted inferences and sweeping legal conclusions cast in the form of factual

allegations.” Farm Credit Services v. American State Bank, 339 F.3d 765, 767 (8th Cir. 2003) (citation

omitted).

Moreover, a court “will dismiss any claim that, even when construed in the light most favorable

to plaintiff, fails to plead sufficiently all required elements of a cause of action.” Student Loan

Marketing Ass'n v. Hanes, 181 F.R.D. 629, 634 (S.D. Cal. 1998). In practice, “a complaint . . . must

contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements necessary to sustain

recovery under some viable legal theory.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 562, 127 S.Ct. at 1969 (quoting Car

Carriers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 745 F.2d 1101, 1106 (7th Cir. 1984)).

Minor Must be Represented

A minor cannot maintain an action on his or her own behalf. While a minor is prohibited to

appear without representation, a minor may appear as a litigant if represented by a guardian ad litem.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c); Local Rule 202(a) (upon “commencement of an action...by or on behalf of a

minor...the attorney representing the minor...shall present (1) appropriate evidence of a representative

for the minor or incompetent person under state law or (2) a motion for the appointment of a guardian

ad litem by the Court.”); see also, Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b) (capacity of litigant determined by “law of the

state there the court is located”); Cal. Code of Civ. P. §372 (a minor “shall appear either by a guardian

or conservator of the estate or by a guardian ad litem appointed by the court in which the action or

proceeding is pending, or by the judge in each case.”). Accordingly, plaintiffs may not appear in propria

persona, as they lack the capacity to sue.

In addition, “a parent or guardian cannot bring an action on behalf of a minor child without

3

Case 1:09-cv-02142-LJO -SKO Document 21 Filed 03/10/10 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

retaining a lawyer.” Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir.1997). This rule is based

on the common-law doctrine that a “‘non-lawyer’ 'has no authority to appear as an attorney for others

than himself.' " Id. (quoting C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir.1987)).

The doctrine is intended to protect litigants and the court from vexatious and poorly drafted claims, and

to ensure that litigants’ rights are advanced by individuals bound by the duties of competence and

professional ethics. Collinsgru v. Palmyra Board of Education, 161 F.3d 225, 231 (3rd Cir.1998); see

also, Johns, 114 F.3d at 877 (where minors have “claims that require adjudication, they are entitled to

trained legal assistance so their rights may be fully protected”).

Because plaintiffs are minors that are neither represented by a guardian ad litem or counsel, this

Court dismisses this action without prejudice. Johns, 114 F.3d at 878. 

Parents Do Not Appear as Litigants

Although the minor plaintiffs cannot pursue their claims without representation, an adult litigant

may represent herself in federal court, 28 U.S.C. § 1654. Under the IDEA, the rights of parents and

children are indistinguishable; thus, plaintiffs’ parents may maintain an action in the parents’ names to

enforce the parents’ rights under the IDEA. Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516, 532

(2007). Specifically, parents of disabled children are entitled to appear without attorney representation

to seek review in federal court of substantive rulings by state educational agencies. D.K. ex. Rel. KumetzColeman v. Huntington Beach Union High Sch. Dist., 428 F. Supp. 2d. 1088, 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2006).

Although the parents signed the FAC as plaintiffs’ “representatives,” the parents are not named

as plaintiffs in this action. Based on the foregoing, the complaint must be dismissed without prejudice.

Failure to State a Claim

In addition to the aforementioned defects, plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under the IDEA,

Section 504, or Cal. Ed. Code §56505. While the notice pleading standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 is liberal,

a plaintiff must provide the “grounds of his entitlement to relief,” which requires “more than labels and

conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550

U.S. 554,127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (internal citations omitted). A plaintiff must allege “enough facts

to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974.

Plaintiffs’ FAC failed to allege facts to put District on notice as to the substance of their claims. 

4

Case 1:09-cv-02142-LJO -SKO Document 21 Filed 03/10/10 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

As to their IDEA claim, Plaintiffs fail to identify which portions of the OAH decisions plaintiffs appeal

and on what grounds. To state a Section 504 claim, plaintiff must allege that: “(1) he is an individual

with a disability; (2) he is otherwise qualified to receive the benefit; (3) he was denied the benefits of

the program solely byreason of his disability; and (4) the program receives federal financial assistance.” 

Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1135 (9th Cir. 2001). In addition, a plaintiff must allege

“precisely which [Section] 504 regulations are at stake and why.” Mark H. v. Lemahieu, 513 F.3d 922,

924 (9th Cir. 2008). Plaintiffs FAC lacks sufficient detail and fails to give District notice as to their

claims. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ FAC is dismissed for failure to state a claim. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, this Court:

1. GRANTS District’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ FAC on

grounds that minor plaintiffs may not appear as litigants without representation and

counsel, and the FAC fails to put District on notice as to the nature of plaintiffs’ claims;

and

2. GRANTS plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint. If plaintiffs choose to file a second

amended complaint, plaintiffs must cure the defects of this complaint on or before April

12, 2010. To cure the defects, plaintiffs must: 

a. comply with Local Rule 202(a) (upon “commencement of an action...by or on

behalf of a minor...the attorney representing the minor...shall present (1)

appropriate evidence of a representative for the minor or incompetent person

under state law or (2) a motion for the appointment of a guardian ad litem by the

Court.”) or substitute parents as plaintiffs to enforce their rights under the IDEA;

and

b. file and serve a second amended complaint to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 that

states enough facts to give District notice as to plaintiffs’ claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5

Case 1:09-cv-02142-LJO -SKO Document 21 Filed 03/10/10 Page 5 of 5