In Grizzell v. San Elijo Elementary School, published August 7, 2024, the 9th Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal without prejudice of a civil rights case against the defendant school and school district. The plaintiff enrolled her children in the school under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. She alleges that the children suffered racial discrimination and harassment, and were ultimately unlawfully unenrolled. She asserted claims under the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the 14th Amendment, Title IV and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and several other federal and state educational laws. When the plaintiff conceded that the lawsuit only concerns her children's claims, the district court dismissed the action without prejudice because the minors could proceed with their claims only through an attorney licensed to practice in the court. The plaintiff appealed.
The 9th Circuit panel affirmed. The "Counsel mandate" requires a non-attorney parent to be represented by counsel in bringing an action on behalf of her child. The right to proceed pro se under 28 U.S.C. section 1654 does not create a true choice for minors who, under state law, cannot determine their own legal actions, and does not overcome the rule that a non-lawyer has no authority to appear as an attorney for others. The panel acknowledged the important interests raised by the plaintiff's allegations, and that other circuits have allowed more flexibility in permitting a pro se parent to make a child's case the parent's own. But the panel viewed itself bound by precedent.
Comments