Latia Noah; Justin Gottfried; Justin Gottfried, as next friend to the Estate and Statutory Beneficiaries of Sgt. Steven Eugene Reese, Deceased v. The Tullock Family Trust; Bobbie Sue Tullock; William Tullock; Scott Tullock; and Does 1-5

Noah · United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Eugene Division · January 23, 2026 · No. 6:25-cv-02326-AA

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Oregon granted Justin Gottfried’s application to proceed in forma pauperis but denied his request to proceed under a pseudonym. The court dismissed the complaint without service because it did not establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction and because a self-represented litigant may not represent other individuals or an estate. The dismissal was with leave to amend within 30 days.

Holdings

  1. The complaint failed to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction because it asserted state-law claims without alleging a federal question or facts establishing complete diversity and the required amount in controversy.
  2. A nonattorney proceeding pro se may represent only himself and may not pursue claims on behalf of another person, a trust, or an estate in a representative capacity.
  3. The motion to proceed under a pseudonym was properly denied because the plaintiff provided no facts showing that anonymity was necessary to protect against retaliation, to preserve privacy in a sensitive and highly personal matter, or to avoid compelled admission of illegal conduct.
  4. The complaint was dismissed with leave to amend despite the court's conclusion that amendment was unlikely to cure the deficiencies.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the complaint established federal-question or diversity subject-matter jurisdiction over the asserted state-law claims.
  2. Whether a self-represented, nonattorney plaintiff could assert claims on behalf of Latia Noah or Sgt. Reese's estate and statutory beneficiaries.
  3. Whether the plaintiff established grounds to proceed under a pseudonym.
  4. Whether the complaint should be dismissed during mandatory in forma pauperis screening and whether leave to amend should be granted.

Disposition

dismissed

Cases Cited (22)

  • Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012)(followed)
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(followed)
  • Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)(followed)
  • Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972)(followed)
  • Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Department, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988)(followed)
  • Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)(followed)
  • United States v. Jacobo Castillo, 496 F.3d 947, 951 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc)(followed)
  • Pistor v. Garcia, 791 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2015)(followed)
  • Fifty Associates v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America, 446 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1971)(followed)
  • Mann v. City of Tucson, Department of Police, 782 F.2d 790, 794 (9th Cir. 1986)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 22.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…