Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01570/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01570-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mike Knowles
Respondent
Mike A. Toscano
Petitioner

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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIKE A. TOSCANO, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

MIKE KNOWLES, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-CV-01570 OWW SMS HC

ORDER REGARDING NEXT FRIEND

STATUS

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[Doc. #6]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On November 6, 2006, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus. On

November 27, 2006, he filed a motion for appointment of counsel and a motion to proceed in forma

pauperis. 

In all of Petitioner’s filings, reference is made to one Shadale L. Williams, who purports to

be Petitioner’s “next of friend.” It is apparent from the several filings that Petitioner requests the

Court appoint Mr. Williams as his representative to prosecute this action. Mr. Williams is not a

licensed attorney, but a fellow inmate. In support of his request, Petitioner cites to Fed. Rules of Civ.

Proc. 17(c) and Local Rule 17-202. These sections allow for the appointment of a legal

representative in instances where the individual to be represented is an infant, minor, or a mentally

incompetent person. 

Case 1:06-cv-01570-OWW -SMS Document 8 Filed 12/06/06 Page 1 of 4
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

The concept of “next friend” standing in habeas corpus proceedings is codified in 28 U.S.C.

§ 2242. Section 2242 states that “[a]n application 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 his behalf.” 

28 U.S.C. §2242 (emphasis added). Generally, a “next friend” appears in court on behalf of a

prisoner who is unable, usually because of mental incompetence or inaccessibility, to seek relief for

themselves. Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 162, 110 S.Ct. 1717 (1990) (emphasis added). 

In Whitmore v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court recognized the concept of “next

friend” standing and explained that the next friend does not become a party to the action but “simply

pursues the cause on behalf of the detained person, who remains the real party in interest.” Id. 

“Next friend” petitions have been filed in a variety of contexts in the past, however, they have been

utilized almost exclusively on behalf of capitally sentenced defendants. See, eg., Demosthenes v.

Baal, 495 U.S. 731, 110 S.Ct. 2223 (1990)(per curiam); Lenhard v. Wolff, 443 U.S. 1306, 100 S.Ct.

3 (1979); Evans v. Bennett, 440 U.S. 1301, 99 S.Ct. 1481 (1979); Gilmore v. Utah, 429 U.S. 1012,

975 S.Ct. 436 (1976). 

A person only has standing to bring a “next friend” challenge to a judgment of death in

limited circumstances. Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 163-64. First, the “next friend” must provide an

adequate explanation -- such as inaccessibility, mental incompetence, or other disability -- why the

real party in interest cannot appear on his own behalf to prosecute the action. Id; See Brewer v.

Lewis, 989 F.2d 1021, 1025-26 (9 Cir. 1993) (“next friend” must prove party to be protected is th

incompetent to assert his own rights); Wilson v. Dixon, 256 F.2d 536, 537 (9 Cir. 1958), cert th

denied, (“The right of one person to sue for habeas corpus to secure the release of another . . . exists

only when the application or complaint for the writ sets forth ‘some reason or explanation

satisfactory to the court showing why the detained person does not sign and verify the complaint and

who the ‘next friend’ is.” (quoting United States ex rel. Bryant v. Houston, 273 F.915, 916 (2d Cir.

1921)). 

Second, the “next friend” must be truly dedicated to the best interests of the person on whose

behalf he seeks to litigate. Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 163-64. It has also been suggested that the “next

friend” have some significant relationship with the real party in interest. Id; See, Davis v. Austin,

Case 1:06-cv-01570-OWW -SMS Document 8 Filed 12/06/06 Page 2 of 4
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 3

492 F. Supp. 273, 275-76 (N.D. Ga. 1980) (minister and first cousin of prisoner denied “next

friend”standing). The burden to establish the propriety of his status is on the proposed “next friend.”

Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 164. 

A third requirement sometimes expressed is that the third-party applicant not be using the

next friend vehicle to engage in the unauthorized practice of law. Id.; See, e.g., Groseclose ex rel.

Harries v. Dutton, 589 F. Supp. 362 (M.D. Tenn 1984). Hence, a habeas petition must set forth

some reason or explanation for the need to resort to the use of a “next friend.” See, Weber v. Garza,

570 F.2d 511, 513-14 (5 Cir. 1978). It is clear that a “next friend” may not file a petition for a writ th

of habeas corpus on behalf of a detainee if the detainee himself could file the petition. Wilson v.

Lane, 870 F.2d 1250, 1253 (7 Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 923 (1990). th

The Court does not find appointing Mr. Williams as Petitioner’s “next friend” appropriate in

this matter. First, it has not been shown that Petitioner is mentally incompetent to prosecute the

action. Second, Mr. Williams lacks a significant relationship with Petitioner. Third, the Court is

aware that inmates often enlist the assistance of other inmates in the preparation of their legal

documents and pleadings as Petitioner has done here. There is nothing preventing Mr. Williams from

continuing to do so. Thus, it is unnecessary to resort to appointing Mr. Williams as “next friend.”

Petitioner has also filed a request for appointment of counsel. There currently exists no

absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258

F.2d 479, 481 (9 Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 889 (1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773 (8 th th

Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 823 (1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the

appointment of counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c),

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the present case, the Court does not find that the interests

of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present time. Accordingly,

Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 6, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

Case 1:06-cv-01570-OWW -SMS Document 8 Filed 12/06/06 Page 3 of 4
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 4

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01570-OWW -SMS Document 8 Filed 12/06/06 Page 4 of 4