Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00102/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00102-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Billy Ray Maldonado
Petitioner
James A. Yates
Respondent

Document Text:

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD SUCH, next friend to 

BILLY RAY MALDONADO,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES A. YATES, warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-102 MHP (pr)

ORDER

This habeas action is now before the court for consideration of the unopposed

application of Richard Such to proceed as petitioner's next friend and respondent's unopposed

motion to dismiss the unexhausted claim. 

A. Application To Proceed As Next Friend

The petition and verification were signed by attorney Richard Such, who represented

Billy Ray Maldonado in his state court appeal but did not purport to represent Maldonado in

this action. The court ordered Such to file a signed petition from Maldonado or to apply to

proceed as his next friend. Attorney Such later filed an application for leave to bring the

petition as Maldonado's next friend. Respondent filed a notice of non-opposition to the

application. 

An "[a]pplication for a writ of habeas corpus shall be in writing signed and verified by

the person for whose relief it is intended or by someone acting in [her] behalf." 28 U.S.C. §

2242. A person other than the detained person may file an application for a writ of habeas

corpus and establish standing as a "next friend." See Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149,

Case 3:07-cv-00102-MHP Document 18 Filed 02/28/08 Page 1 of 3
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

163 (1990). A next friend does not himself become a party to the habeas petition, "but

simply pursues the cause on behalf of the detained person, who remains the real party in

interest." Id. 

Richard Such filed a declaration explaining that Maldonado cannot appear on his own

behalf to prosecute this action because Maldonado appears to be mentally ill and does not

want to possess in prison materials pertaining to his case due to unidentified sensitive facts of

his case. Such also submitted evidence that supports a finding that he is dedicated to the best

interests of Maldonado: he represented him in the state court appellate proceedings and

continues to correspond with him. See Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163-64 (1990). 

Although it is a close call, the court concludes that the two prerequisites to "next friend"

standing have been met. For the foregoing reasons, Richard Such's application to proceed as

Maldonado's best friend is GRANTED. (Docket # 12.) 

As the next friend, Such does not himself become a party to the habeas petition, "but

simply pursues the cause on behalf of the detained person, who remains the real party in

interest." Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 163. All documents to be served on the petitioner shall be

sent to Such as next friend to Maldonado. 

Notwithstanding the court's ruling that Such may proceed as Maldonado's next friend,

the court is quite concerned that Such ignored the court's initial order (in the Order to Show

Cause) that he take care of the proper petitioner problem, and the court had to sua sponte

reset the deadline. Because any further missteps by Such will work to the great detriment of

Maldonado, the court wants to be sure that Maldonado is aware that this action exists and is

most likely his one and only opportunity to challenge his state court conviction. Therefore,

Such must file and serve a declaration no later than May 2, 2008, confirming that he has

informed Maldonado (a) that Such is proceeding as his next friend, (b) of the claims for relief

asserted in the habeas petition, and (c) that Maldonado can write to the court to promptly

object to Such proceeding as his next friend.

Case 3:07-cv-00102-MHP Document 18 Filed 02/28/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3

B. Motion To Dismiss

Respondent moved to dismiss on the ground that the fourth of the four claims raised in

the petition had not presented to the California Supreme Court before being raised in the

federal petition. Petitioner filed a notice of non-opposition to the motion, stating that he

agreed that Claim 4 had not been exhausted and requesting that it be dismissed and that the

case proceed with the first three claims in the petition. Accordingly, the court GRANTS the

motion to dismiss. (Docket # 8.) Claim 4, i.e., the claim that petitioner's rights to due

process and a jury trial were violated when the trial court failed submit to the jury the

question of whether the burglary was first degree burglary, is now DISMISSED. 

With the dismissal of that claim, the mixed petition problem is solved and the case can

move forward for adjudication of the first three claims identified in the order to show cause. 

Respondent has filed an answer to the order to show cause discussing the three exhausted

claims. The court needs only a traverse for the matter to be fully submitted. Accordingly, if

petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he must do so by filing a traverse with the court

and serving it on respondent on or before May 2, 2008.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 2/26/2008 

Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

 

Case 3:07-cv-00102-MHP Document 18 Filed 02/28/08 Page 3 of 3