# Otgondaataz

> District Court, E.D. California · May 27, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11384867

## Case

- **Full name:** Grigore Sapteste and M.S., a minor v. Togs Otgondaataz
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** May 27, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11384867

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 GRIGORE SAPTESTE and M.S., a minor, No. 2:26-cv-1825 DC AC PS
12 Plaintiffs,
13 v. ORDER and
14 TOGS OTGONDAATAZ, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
15 Defendant.
16
17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was accordingly referred to the
18 undersigned by E.D. Cal. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff filed a request for leave to proceed in forma
19 pauperis (“IFP”) and has submitted the affidavit required by that statute. See 28 U.S.C.
20 § 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) will therefore be granted.
21 I. Screening
22 A. Standards
23 The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally
24 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks
25 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A
26 claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v.
27 Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court will
28 (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly
1 baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and
2 (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von Saher v. Norton
3 Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 564 U.S.
4 1037 (2011).
5 The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint
6 states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court
7 must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must
8 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a
9 less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
10 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable
11 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618,
12 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not suffice
13 to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
14 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
15 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough facts “to
16 state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has
17 facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
18 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
19 678. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity
20 to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Noll v.
21 Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987), superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in
22 Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.2000)) (en banc).
23 B. The Complaint
24 Plaintiff Grigore Saptesate asks the court to review the ruling of the California State
25 Superior Court’s decision in a dog bite case involving his minor child, M.S., who is identified as
26 a co-plaintiff. ECF No. 1 at 1, 3. Grigore Saptesate alleges that when he opened a small case in
27 Superior Court everything was suspicious because of misconduct, abuse, scams, shames, and
28 improper influence. Id. at 3. The dog tore plaintiff’s son’s pants, but the judge gave him only
1 $100. Id. Plaintiff alleges the state court judge “didn’t take correct decision” despite the
2 evidence, and that the “verdict was very BAD and stupid[.]” Id. When asked to state the basis
3 for federal jurisdiction, plaintiff checks the “federal question” box and writes, “I know you’re
4 high level court than Superior Court … I’m not agree with judge and Superior Court about my
5 minor SON DOG BITE CASE . . . $100 for legs injuries I want correct justice please.” Id. at 4.
6 B. Analysis
7 1. The Pro Se Plaintiff Cannot Sue on Behalf of His Son
8 Plaintiff Grigore Saptesate, who is appearing in pro se, has named his minor son as a co-
9 plaintiff. ECF No. 1 at 1. Plaintiff cannot pursue a claim on behalf of his minor child, because he
10 cannot represent others while appearing pro se. See Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874,
11 877 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[W]e hold that a parent or guardian cannot bring an action on behalf of a
12 minor child without retaining a lawyer.”); C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696,
13 697 (9th Cir. 1987) (pro se party “has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than
14 himself”). Accordingly, this case cannot proceed insofar as plaintiff is proceeding pro se and
15 seeking relief on behalf of his minor son. Any lawsuit presenting the claims of M.S. must be filed
16 by a lawyer. As a self-represented litigant, plaintiff can sue only on his own behalf.
17 2. Plaintiff Himself Appears to Lack Standing
18 Article III of the U.S. Constitution requires that a plaintiff must have “standing” in order
19 to bring a lawsuit. To establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must show—among other things—
20 that he has been subjected to “an injury in fact,” which means a concrete and particularized
21 invasion of his own legally protected interest. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555,
22 560-61 (1992). The complaint does not identify any injury to a legally protected interest of
23 plaintiff Grigore Saptesate; it appears to rest entirely on injury to the minor M.S.
24 3. The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine Bars this Case
25 The court is prohibited from hearing this case in its entirety because Federal District
26 Courts cannot hear appeals from state court rulings. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine1 prohibits
27
1 See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) and District of Columbia Court of
28 Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).
1 federal district courts from hearing cases “brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries
2 caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and
3 inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi
4 Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). To determine if the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars
5 a case, the court must first determine if the federal action contains a forbidden de facto appeal of a
6 state court judicial decision. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). If it does not,
7 “the Rooker-Feldman inquiry ends.” Bell v. City of Boise, 709 F.3d 890, 897 (9th Cir. 2013). If
8 a court determines that the action is a “forbidden de facto appeal,” however, the court cannot hear
9 the de facto appeal portion of the case and, [a]s part of that refusal, it must also refuse to decide
10 any issue raised in the suit that is ‘inextricably intertwined’ with an issue resolved by the state
11 court in its judicial decision.” Noel, 341 F.3d at 1158; see also Bell, 709 F.3d at 897 (“The
12 ‘inextricably intertwined’ language from Feldman is not a test to determine whether a claim is a
13 de facto appeal, but is rather a second and distinct step in the Rooker-Feldman analysis.”). A
14 complaint is a “de facto appeal” of a state court decision where the plaintiff “complains of a legal
15 wrong allegedly committed by the state court, and seeks relief from the judgment of that court.”
16 Noel, 341 F.3d at 1163.
17 Here, the plaintiff expressly asks this court to review the Superior Court’s decision in his
18 son’s dog bite case. ECF No. 1 at 5. This federal court may not reconsider the judgments of state
19 courts. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars this court’s consideration of plaintiff’s case.
20 Appellate review of a superior court’s decision is available only in the California Court of
21 Appeal.
22 II. Leave to Amend is Not Appropriate
23 Leave to amend should be granted if it appears possible that the defects in the complaint
24 could be corrected, especially if a plaintiff is pro se. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31
25 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). However, if it is clear that a complaint cannot be cured by amendment,
26 the court may dismiss without leave to amend. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105-06 (9th
27 Cir. 1995). Here, the deficiencies of the complaint cannot be cured by amendment. It is very
28 clear from the contents of the complaint that plaintiff received a judgment in state court regarding
1 | his minor child’s dog bite injuries, and that he is asking this court to act as an appellate court to
2 || review the state court’s decision. The federal district court cannot review or overturn the state
3 | court’s decision. For this reason, the court finds that amendment would be futile. Dismissal
4 | therefore should be without leave to amend.
5 III. Pro Se Plaintiff?s Summary
6 The Magistrate Judge is recommending that your case be dismissed because federal
7 || district courts do not have authority to overrule decisions by state courts. If you want to appeal
8 | the Superior Court’s decision in the dog bite case involving your son, you must do that within the
9 || state court system. You have 21 days to object to this recommendation if you wish to do so. The
10 || District Judge will make the final decision.
11 IV. Conclusion
12 For the reasons explained above, it is HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs request to
13 || proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED.
14 It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED and
15 || that this case be closed.
16 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
17 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty one days
18 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections
19 || with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Id.; see also Local Rule 304(b). Such a document
20 || should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure
21 || to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s
22 || order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153,
23 | 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).
24 || DATED: May 26, 2026 Z 2 fA
25 ALLISON CLAIRE
6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11384867. Public record. Not legal advice.