Schaupp
Schaupp v. County of Stanislaus
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CAROLYN SCHAUPP, et al., No. 1:20-cv-01221-DAD-BAM Plaintiffs, v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF CAROLYN
SHAUPP’S MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY
COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, et al., RESTRAINING ORDER AND
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Defendants. (Doc. No. 5)
17 On August 28, 2020, plaintiffs Carolyn Schaupp and Carolyn Schaupp, Sr. (collectively, “plaintiffs”1), both proceeding pro se, filed a complaint alleging various violations of state and federal law. (Doc. No. 1 (“Compl.”).) Plaintiff Schaupp also filed a motion for a temporary /////
The complaint alleges that plaintiff Schaupp intends to represent her minor children—D.S., L.S., and P.I.—in this action. (Compl. at ¶¶ 8–10.) The Ninth Circuit has held that “a non- attorney parent must be represented by counsel in bringing an action on behalf of his or her child. The choice to appear pro se is not a true choice for minors who under state law cannot determine 25 their own legal actions.” Johns v.…