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 TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK
COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, et al., OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION Defendants. 16 On August 28, 2020, plaintiffs Carolyn Schaupp and Carolyn Schaupp, Sr. (collectively, “plaintiffs”1) commenced this action against defendants County of Stanislaus; the Stanislaus County Superior Court; Frank Sousa; Edward Izzo; and multiple other individuals who are apparently associated with the Stanislaus County. (Doc. No. 1.) The complaint—which alleges claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York, 436
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…