Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01637/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01637-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TONY LESSIE,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARIO LOZANO, Correctional Officer at 

Kern Valley State Prison,

Defendant.

No. 1:19-cv-01637-DAD-SKO (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

ACTION

(Doc. No. 10)

Plaintiff Tony Lessie is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On March 6, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 

recommending that this action be dismissed due to plaintiff’s lack of standing. (Doc. No. 10.) 

The magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff did not assert any violation of his own rights in his 

complaint, but, rather, alleged that the constitutional rights of his wife had been violated while 

attempting to visit him, despite not alleging facts sufficient to make the requisite showing for 

third-party standing. (Id. at 2–3.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff 

and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days of 

service. (Id.) On April 1, 2020, plaintiff filed timely objections. (Doc. No. 11.) 

Case 1:19-cv-01637-DAD-SKO Document 12 Filed 04/28/20 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

In his objections, plaintiff contends that “a habeas petitioner may demonstrate standing as 

a ‘next friend’ of the real party in interest.” (Id. at 1 (citing Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 

160–62 (1990)).)1 However, a petitioner seeking standing as a “next friend” must, among other 

things, demonstrate that the real party in interest cannot appear on its own behalf to prosecute the 

action. See Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 163–64. Here, plaintiff failed to respond to the magistrate 

judge’s finding that he failed to “show any hindrance to his wife’s ability to prosecute her own 

lawsuit.” (Doc. No. 10 at 3.) Simply being married does not automatically entitle a spouse to 

“next friend” standing. See, e.g., DiPietro v. Senula, No. 1:12-cv-0189-NLH, 2012 WL 136812, 

at *2 (D.N.J. Jan. 18, 2012) (holding that a wife does not have standing in her own right to file a 

habeas petition for her husband) (citing Amato v. Wilentz, 952 F.2d 742, 751 (3d Cir. 1991) and 

Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 163–64).

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 

objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the 

record and proper analysis. 

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations filed on March 6, 2020 (Doc. No. 10) are 

adopted in full;

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff’s lack of standing to 

prosecute this action on behalf of his spouse; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 28, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1

 As noted, plaintiff has filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and does not seek 

federal habeas relief.

Case 1:19-cv-01637-DAD-SKO Document 12 Filed 04/28/20 Page 2 of 2