Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00681/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00681-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHAEL WALTER BERGER,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JEFFREY BEARD, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 15-cv-0681-TEH 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

APPOINT AS NEXT FRIEND 

Re: Dkt. No. 26 

Plaintiff proceeds with a civil rights action. Defendant 

filed a motion for summary judgment and the Court is awaiting the 

opposition from Plaintiff. Plaintiff was formerly a state 

prisoner but has been released. While in prison he was being 

aided by another inmate. That inmate, who is still incarcerated 

at Correctional Training Facility-Soledad, seeks permission to be 

appointed as Plaintiff’s “next friend” and litigate this case on 

Plaintiff’s behalf. 

In Whitmore v. Arkansas, the Supreme Court stated that 

“‘next friend’ standing is by no means granted automatically to 

whomever seeks to pursue an action on behalf of another.” 

Whitmore, 495 U.S. 149, 163 (1990). To establish next friend 

standing, a putative next friend must show “(1) that the 

petitioner is unable to litigate his own cause due to mental 

incapacity, lack of access to court, or other similar disability; 

and (2) the next friend has some significant relationship with, 

Case 3:15-cv-00681-TEH Document 28 Filed 01/12/16 Page 1 of 2
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

and is truly dedicated to the best interests of, the petitioner.” 

Coalition of Clergy, Lawyers and Professors v. Bush, 310 F.3d 

1153, 1159–60 (9th Cir. 2002). The burden is on the putative next 

friend to clearly establish the propriety of his or her status. 

Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 164. 

The inmate argues that he aided Plaintiff while in prison 

and should continue. The inmate has failed to show that 

Plaintiff is unable to litigate this case and that the inmate has 

some significant relationship with Plaintiff.1 The inmate has not 

described how as a prisoner he will have more court access then 

Plaintiff who is not incarcerated. The motion (Docket No. 26) is 

DENIED. Plaintiff is reminded that he must file the opposition 

to summary judgment by January 25, 2016. 

This order terminates Docket No. 26. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 01/16/2016 

________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge 

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.15\Berger0681.ord_friend.docx

 

1 The filing sent to the Court contains a declaration for Plaintiff 

that was prepared by the inmate but was not signed by Plaintiff.

Case 3:15-cv-00681-TEH Document 28 Filed 01/12/16 Page 2 of 2