FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT AUGUST 28, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 10217 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 0 2 2 7 0 - C V- T - 2 6 - MAP H E N R Y F R A N C I S , N e x t o f f r ie n d , J a c q u e lin e D e n n is , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s W A R D E N , F C C C O L E M A N - U S P , R e s p o n d e n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 28, 2007) B efo re D U B IN A , C A RN E S an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: H e n r y F r a n c is , p r o c e e d in g p r o s e , ap p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f h isFrancis also argues that the district cour t abused its discretion by

dismiss ing his motion 1 for lea ve to proc eed on a

ppeal in for

ma pauperis (“IFP”) . However, the district cour t’s order denying F ranc is’s motion for leaveto proce ed on appe al IFP is a non-a ppeala ble final order, and theprop e r a

venu efo r “review” of

su c h a n o rde r i s b y

motion to t his Court . Se eF e d. R.A

pp .P. 24 (a)( 5) and

Ad vis or y Comm. N ote(1 96 7) ¶3 (s tatin gthat th erulec on c e rningIF P “ e sta bli sh e s a subsequent motion in the court of a ppeals, rather than a

n appeal . . . as the proper proc edurefor callinginto question the corre ctness of theaction of thedistrict court”) . Francis filed a motion for lea ve to proc ced on a

ppeal IFP with this Court, which was grante d. There fore , we ne ed not addre ss Fra

ncis’s argument that the district court erre d by denying his IFP motion. 2 F ed. R . C i v. P . 60 (b) m ot i on , w hi ch re qu es t ed re l i ef fr om the § 2 24 1 p et i t i on that J a c que l i ne D e nni s br oughton hi s be ha l f w i thouthi s pe r m i s s i on. 1 W e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s or de ron a R ul e 60( b) m ot i on f ora n a bus e of d is c r e tio n . W illa r d v . F a ir f ie ld S . C o ., I n c ., 4 7 2 F .3 d 8 1 7 , 8 2 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) .

“ A di s tr i c tc our ta bus e s i t s di s c r e t i on i f i tappl i e s a n i nc or r e c tl e ga l s t a nda r d, f ol l ow s i m pr ope rpr oc e dur e s i n m a ki ng the de t e r m i na t i on, orm a ke s f i ndi ngs of f a c ttha ta r e c l e a r l y e r r one ous . A di s tr i c tc our tm a y a l s o a bus e i t s di s c r e t i on by ap p ly in g th e la w in a n u n r e a s o n a b le o rin c o r r e c t m a n n e r .” K la y v . H u m a n a , I n c ., 382 F . 3d 1241, 1251 ( 11th C i r . 2004) . W e c a n a l s o f i nd a n a bus e of

di s c r e t i on w he r e the di s tr i c tc our tha d m a de a c l e a re r r orof j udgm e nt . A m l ong & A m l ong, P .A . v , D e n n y ’s , I n c ., 4 5 7 F .3 d 1 1 8 0 , 1 1 8 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . I n r e le v a n t p a r t, R u le 6 0 ( b ) p r o v id e s th a t, [o] n m ot i on and u po n such t erm s a s a re j ust , the courtm ay re l i eve a pa r ty ora pa r ty ’ s l e ga l r e pr e s e nt a t i ve f r om a f i na l j udgm e nt , or de r , or proceedi ng for the fol l ow i ng re as on s: (1) m i st ake, i nadv ert ence , s urpr i s e , ore xc us a bl e ne gl e c t. . . ( 4) the j udgm e nti s voi d . . . or( 6) a n y o th e rr e a s o n ju s tif

y in g r e lie f

f r o m th e o p e r a tio n o f

th e ju d g m e n t.3

W e ha ve he l d tha tthe s uc c e s s i ve w r i trul e ba r s c l a i m s r a i s e d i n a § 2241 pe t i t i on th a t h a v e b e e n litig a te d a n d a d ju d ic a te d in a p e titio n e r ’s p r io rh a b e a s p r o c e e d in g s . G l um b v . H on st ed, 89 1 F . 2d 87 2, 87 3 (11 th C i r. 19 90 ); se e 28 U . S . C . § 2 24 4(a) . U nde r28 U . S . C . § 2242, a n “ appl i c a t i on f ora w r i tof

ha be a s c orpus s ha l l be i n w r i t i ng s i gne d a nd ve r i f i e d by the pe r s on f

orw hos e r e l i e f

i ti s i nt e nde d orby s o m e o n e a c tin g in h is b e h a lf .” I n h a b e a s c o rp u s c a s e s , w e p e r m it a “n e x t f r ie n d ” to pr oc e e d on be ha l f

of a pr i s one rw ho i s una bl e t o s e e k r e l i e f hi m s e l f . F or d v. H al ey , 19 5 F . 3d 60 3, 62 4 (11 th C i r. 19 99 ). T he S up re m e C ou rthas s t at ed that de c i s i ons appl y i ng the ha be a s c orpus s t a tut e ha ve a dhe r e d t o a tl e a s tthe f ol l ow i ng pr e r e qui s i t e s f

ors uc h “ ne xtf

r i e nd” s t a ndi ng: F i rs t , a “ nextfr i end” m ustprov i de an adequat e e xp l anat i on -s uch as i nacc es si bi l i ty, m ent al i ncom pet ence , or ot her di sabi l i ty- w hy the re al pa r ty i n i nt e r e s tc a nnotappe a ron hi s ow n be ha l f t o pr os e c ut e the act i o n . S eco n d , th e “ n ex tfri en d ” m u stb e tru l y d ed i cat ed t o th e b est i nt er es t s of the pers on on w ho se behal f he s ee ks t o l i t i gat e, and i thas be e n f ur the rs ugge s t e d tha ta “ ne xtf r i e nd” m us tha ve s om e s i gni f i c a nt r e la tio n s h ip w ith th e r e a l p a r ty in in te r e s t. W hi tm or e v. A r ka ns a s , 495 U . S . 149, 163, 110 S . C t . 1717, 1727, 109 L . E d. 2d 135 ( 1990) ( c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) ( a ddr e s s i ng a n i ndi vi dua l ’ s “ ne xtf r i e nd” s t a tus i n the c ont e xtof

a n appe a l ) ; s e e L onc ha rv. Z a nt , 978 F . 2d 637, 641 ( 11th C i r . 1992) ( hol di ng tha tthe pr e r e qui s i t e s di s c us s e d i n W hi tm or e appl y w he r e a “ ne xtf r i e nd” seek s a w ri to f h ab eas co rp u s o n so m eo n e’ s b eh al f). A b sen t“ n ex tfri en d ” st atu s,4

a n i ndi vi dua l l a c ks A r t i c l e I I I s t a ndi ng t o f i l e a pe t i t i on on a nothe r ’ s be ha l f , thus s tr i ppi ng the di s tr i c tc our tof j ur i s di c t i on t o c ons i de rthe pe t i t i on. W hi tm or e , 495 U . S . a t155- 56, 163, 110 S . C t . a t1722- 23, 1727. W e have hel d t hata di stri ctcourtprop er l y r ef used t o fi l e ahabeas ap p l i cat i o n th atw as fi l ed b y a “ n ex tfri en d ” w h ere th e ap p l i cat i o n d i d n o test ab l i sh a ny r e a s on ore xpl a na t i on of w hy i tw a s ne c e s s a r y t o r e s or tt o the “ ne xtf r i e nd” devi ce , and n o such rea son o r e xp l anat i on appeare d i n the re cord. W eberv. G ar za , 570 F . 2d 511, 514 ( 5th C i r . 1978) . F ur the r m or e , “ [ t ] he bur de n i s on the ‘ ne xt f r i e nd’ c l e a r l y t o e s t a bl i s h the pr opr i e ty of hi s s t a tus a nd the r e by j us t i f y the j u ri sd i ct i o n o f th e co u rt . ” W h i tm o re, 4 9 5 U . S . at1 6 4 , 1 1 0 S . C t . at1 7 2 7 . “ P ro se p l ead i n g s are h el d t o a l ess stri n g en tst an d ard th an p l ead i n g s d raft ed b y att o rn eys a nd w i l l , the r e f

or e , be l i be r a l l y c ons true d. ” T a nne nba um v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 148 F . 3d 12 62 , 12 63 (11t h C i r. 19 98 ). C ontr a r y t o the gove r nm e nt ’ s c ont e nt i on tha tD e nni s c oul d notr e pr e s e nt F r a nc i s be c a us e s he i s nota n a tt or ne y , s he c oul d ha ve ha d s t a ndi ng a s a “ ne xt f r ie n d .” S e e W h itm o r e , 4 9 5 U .S . a t 1 6 3 , 1 1 0 S .C t. a t 1 7 2 7 . F u r th e r m o r e , w h ile the go vernm entcl ai m s thatF ra nci s w as no tprej ud i ce d b y a ny error, the di sm i ss al of the pr e s e nt§ 2241 pe t i t i on br oughti n F r a nc i s ’ s na m e c oul d ba rhi m f r om r e r a i s i ng a ny of

the c l a i m s i n the pe t i t i on. S e e G l um b, 891 F . 2d a t873; s e e a l s o 285

U . S . C . § 2244( a ) . H ow e ve r , w i thout“ ne xtf r i e nd” s t a tus , D e nni s l a c ke d s t a ndi ng unde rA r t i c l e I I I t o f

i l e the § 2241 pe t i t i on, thus s tr i ppi ng the di s tr i c tc our tof j uri sdi ct i on ov erthe pet i t i on . W hi tm ore, 49 5 U . S . at15 5-56 , 16 3, 11 0 S . C t . at 1 7 2 2 - 2 3 , 1 7 2 7 ; W e b e r , 5 7 2 F .2 d a t 5 1 4 . H er e, D enni s di d n otsa t i sf y herbu rden of es t abl i shi ng thatshe w as ent i t l ed t o “ ne xtf

r i e nd” s t a tus . W hi tm or e , 495 U . S . a t164, 110 S . C t . a t1727. T he § 2241 p et i t i o n d i d n o tex p l ai n w h y i tw as n ecessary fo r D en n i s t o su b m i tth e p et i t i o n as a

“ nextfr i end, ” a s i ton l y s t at ed thatD enni s w as F ra nci s’ s husband and t hathe w as u n a b le to in itia te th e p e titio n f r o m p r is o n . T h e p e titio n p r o v id e d n o r e a s o n s in su p p o rt o f th is b lan k et as se rtio n , an d th er e is n o re as o n to th in k th at F ra n cis’s i n c a r c e r a t i o n a l o n e wo u l d p r e v e n th i m f r o m f i l i n g a § 2 2 4 1 p e t i t i o n o n h i s o wn behal f. T here fore , because the § 2 24 1 p et i t i on do es no texpl ai n F ra nci s’ s a l l eged in a b ility to p r o s e c u te th e a c tio n o n h is o w n b e h a lf , D e n n is la c k e d s ta n d in g to f ile the pet i t i on , and t he di stri ctcourtshou l d h ave r ef used t o fi l e i t . S ee i d. ; W eber , 570 F . 2d a t514. A c c or di ngl y , the di s tr i c tc our ta bus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng F r a nc i s ’ s R ul e 60( b) m ot i on, w hi c h r e que s t e d tha the notbe he l d a c c ount a bl e f or the § 2 24 1 p et i t i on thathe nei ther f i l ed no r autho ri ze d t o b e f i l ed on hi s behal f, be c a us e D e nni s di d notha ve s t a ndi ng t o f i l e the § 2241 pe t i t i on. S e e A m l ong & A m lo n g , 4 5 7 F .3 d at 1 1 8 8 ; K lay, 3 8 2 F .3 d at 1 2 5 1 . W e v ac ate th e d istrict co u rt’s6

order denyi ng F ra nci s’ s R ul e 60(b) m ot i on and rem and t he ca se for the di stri ct c our tt o gr a ntthe R ul e 60( b) m ot i on a nd i ns ur e tha tF r a nc i s i s notpr e j udi c e d by the di s m i s s a l of

the i m pr ope r l y f

i l e d § 2241 pe t i t i on. V AC AT E D A ND RE MAND E D.