Schaupp

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CAROLYN SCHAUPP, et al., No. 1:20-cv-01221-DAD-BAM 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK

14 COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, et al., OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION 15 Defendants. 16 17 On August 28, 2020, plaintiffs Carolyn Schaupp and Carolyn Schaupp, Sr. (collectively, 18 “plaintiffs”1) commenced this action against defendants County of Stanislaus; the Stanislaus 19 County Superior Court; Frank Sousa; Edward Izzo; and multiple other individuals who are 20 apparently associated with the Stanislaus County. (Doc. No. 1.) The complaint—which alleges 21 claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York, 436 22

23 1 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- 24 attorney parent must be represented by counsel in bringing an action on behalf of his or her…