Opinion
CV-24-01932-PHX-DWL
10-18-2024
Kenneth Sachs, Plaintiff, v. State of Arizona, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Dominic W. Lanza, United States District Judge
Plaintiff Kenneth Sachs appears to remain “distraught about a family court action that occurred in Maricopa County Superior Court and has filed [numerous] complaints- including this one-against individuals who were somehow involved in that family court decision.” Sachs v. Bergin, 2022 WL 1747809, *1 (D. Ariz. 2022). This time, Sachs purports to appear, pro se, as the “next friend” of his daughter, Jane Doe. (Docs. 1, 9.) He cannot do so. Complot v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 2023 WL 8234271, *3 (D. Ariz. 2023) (“[I]n an action in which the sole plaintiff is incapacitated and cannot proceed pro se, the plaintiff must be represented by competent counsel, or alternatively, the action must be dismissed without prejudice.”). Moreover, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the asserted claims, which attack a state court judgment and are, at any rate, frivolous. Sachs v. Sachs, 2021 WL 3190728, *3 (D. Ariz. 2021) (“Where an action asserts an impermissible collateral attack, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the action.”); Bergin, 2022 WL 1747809 (dismissing for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction); Sachs v. Branton, 2023 WL 5346044, *1 (9th Cir. 2023) (“Sachs failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. . . . The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying further leave to amend because amendment would have been futile.”).
Defendants have filed a motion asserting many grounds for dismissal, including lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 14.) Subject-matter jurisdiction is a threshold determination, and therefore the Court dismisses on that basis, despite the likely merit of Defendants' other arguments.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 14) is granted. This action is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to seal (Doc. 26) and motion to appoint counsel (Doc. 29) are denied as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment and terminate this action.