Mansueto v. Brown

No. 25-cv-01859-BAS-VET (S.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2025) · United States District Court for the Southern District of California · August 19, 2025 · No. 25-cv-01859-BAS-VET

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California dismissed Joyce Mansueto’s action without prejudice. The court held that she could not proceed pro se through her brother, failed to comply with an order to show cause, failed to state a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and failed to establish personal jurisdiction over the proper habeas respondent. The court also denied appointment of counsel as unwarranted and terminated the pending motions as moot.

Holdings

  1. A pro se litigant may represent only herself; she may not prosecute claims on another person's behalf through a nonlawyer relative.
  2. A district court may dismiss an action without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order after considering the applicable dismissal factors and less drastic alternatives.
  3. The § 1983 claim fails where the complaint does not plausibly allege that the defendants acted under color of state law or jointly participated with state actors.
  4. A petitioner confined pursuant to a state-court judgment must proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 rather than § 2241 and must name the state officer who has immediate custody and authority to produce the petitioner; failure to do so defeats personal jurisdiction.
  5. Plaintiff was not entitled to appointed counsel because she did not establish financial eligibility or exceptional circumstances under the applicable statutes.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a pro se litigant may prosecute claims on another person's behalf through an unlicensed relative.
  2. Whether dismissal was warranted for failure to comply with the court's order to show cause and filing-signature requirements.
  3. Whether the complaint plausibly stated a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against private defendants by alleging state action.
  4. Whether the habeas claim was properly brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and whether the named defendants were proper respondents establishing personal jurisdiction.
  5. Whether Plaintiff was entitled to appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) or 18 U.S.C. § 3006A.

Disposition

dismissed

Cases Cited (31)

  • Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008)(followed)
  • Russell v. United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962)(followed)
  • Dennis ex rel. Butko v. Budge, 378 F.3d 880, 888 (9th Cir. 2004)(applied)
  • Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005)(followed)
  • Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002)(applied)
  • Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)(followed)
  • In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994)(followed)
  • Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998)(followed)
  • West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49 (1988)(followed)
  • Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 824 (9th Cir. 2001)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 31.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…