Opinion
3:23-CV-1087-B-BH
07-10-2023
BONNIE RUTH ALLEN-STRAIGHT, Petitioner, v. STATE OF TEXAS, Respondent.
Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge
By Special Order No. 3-251 , this habeas case has been automatically referred for findings, conclusions, and recommendation.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Based on the relevant filings and applicable law, the Writ of Coram Nobis, received on June 13, 2023 (doc. 10), should be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. To the extent the petitioner seeks next-friend status for David Lester Straight, the request should be DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
Bonnie Ruth Allen-Straight (Petitioner), an inmate currently incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division (TDCJ-CID), was convicted in Johnson County, Texas, of carrying a weapon in a prohibited place; she was sentenced to five years' imprisonment on May 5, 2023, following a revocation of her probation. See State v. Thomas, No. F50926 (18th Dist. Ct., Johnson Cty., Tex. May 5, 2023). On May 11, 2023, an “Emergency Writ of Habeas Corpus” filed and signed on behalf of Petitioner by David Lester Straight that appeared to assert both habeas and civil claims was received. (See doc. 3.) Several affidavits and declarations from others relating to Petitioner's allegations in this action were also received on May 16, 2023, and May 30, 2023. (See docs. 4-6, 8-9.)
By order dated May 23, 2023, Petitioner was advised that David Lester Straight may not represent her in this action because it did not appear that he was licensed to practice law and he had not established the propriety of “next friend” status under 28 U.S.C. § 2242. If he sought to pursue the action on Petitioner's behalf, he had to file a motion to proceed as next friend for her within 30 days of the order that: (1) explained why Petitioner could not prosecute this case on her own at this time; (2) established that he is truly dedicated to the best interests of Petitioner; and (3) showed a significant relationship with Petitioner. (See doc. 7 at 1-2.) Petitioner was advised that she could alternatively prosecute this action on her own by filing the appropriate forms under her own signature. (See id. at 2.) To the extent she appeared to be challenging the parole revocation and state conviction pursuant to which she was in custody, she was directed to complete and return the appropriate forms for actions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 within 30 days of the order. (See id.) If she intended to raise any non-habeas civil claims, she was directed to complete and return the appropriate forms for filing a civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and to either pay the full filing fee for civil actions or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis with the required certificate of inmate trust account within 30 days of the order. (See id.)
Petitioner did not complete and return any of the appropriate forms for filing a § 2254 habeas or civil rights action, and she did not pay the filing fee for a civil action or a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Instead, she filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis on June 13, 2023. (See doc. 10.) She argues that the state court lacked authority to enter judgment against her, codes and statutes do not apply to her, she is innocent of any crime, her conviction was contrived through fraud, she was falsely arrested and kidnapped, she was punished without indictment, she was denied bail, she was placed under house arrest and probation, she was ordered to pay monthly fees for community supervision, she was prohibited from traveling, a state magistrate judge interfered with her 2009 divorce decree, officers of the state court are involved in trafficking women and children, she was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, officers of the state court executed a plan to deceive jurors at her trial, her due process rights were violated because false testimony was presented at trial and she was unable to prepare a defense, due process was denied at both the trial and appellate levels, she discharged her debt in the underlying state case by sending a silver coin by registered mail, and she was subjected to double jeopardy. (See id. at 3-20.) In her filing, she also appears to appoint herself and David Lester Straight as “attorney in-fact for all purposes related to the administration of the BONNIE ALLEN THOMAS estates[.]” (Id. at 21; see also id. at 23-24.) She alleges that her place of incarceration is withholding pens, paper, and library access, and U.S. Mail has been denied to her multiple times, so “[t]herefore it is imperative that I have my husband, assignee, trust protector to draft, print and file papers as I wish, into the court case, to compel remedies for my life, liberty and property.” (Id. at 22.)
II. JURISDICTION
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (internal citations omitted). They “must presume that a suit lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction rests on the party seeking the federal forum.” Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 916 (5th Cir. 2001). Courts have “a continuing obligation to examine the basis for their jurisdiction.” MCG, Inc. v. Great W. Energy Corp., 896 F.2d 170, 173 (5th Cir. 1990).
A writ of error coram nobis is a remedy of last resort for persons who are no longer in custody pursuant to a criminal conviction and therefore are unable to pursue direct review or seek collateral relief by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See United States v. Hatten, 167 F.3d 884, 887 n.6 (5th Cir. 1999). Petitioner is still in custody, so this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant coram nobis relief. United States v. Urdiales Garcia, 442 Fed.Appx. 935, 936 (5th Cir. 2011); see also United States v. Esogbue, 357 F.3d 532, 534 (5th Cir. 2004). It also does “not have authority to grant coram nobis relief to a state prisoner seeking to attack a state court judgment.” Back v. Amarillo Police Dep't, 673 Fed.Appx. 458, 458 (5th Cir. 2017). Accordingly, the petition for a writ of error coram nobis should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Because Petitioner has not complied with the May 23, 2023 order to complete and return the appropriate forms to pursue a § 2254 habeas action or a § 1983 civil rights action, her current filing is not construed as either a § 2254 or § 1983 action.
III. NEXT FRIEND STATUS
As discussed, if David Lester Straight sought to pursue this action on Petitioner's behalf, he was required to file a motion to proceed as next friend for her within 30 days of the order that: (1) explained why Petitioner could not prosecute this case on her own at this time; (2) established that he is truly dedicated to the best interests of Petitioner; and (3) showed a significant relationship with Petitioner. (See doc. 7 at 1-2.) The next friend has the burden to clearly “establish the propriety of his status” so as to “justify the jurisdiction of the court.” Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 164 (1990); Weber v. Garza, 570 F.2d 511, 514 (5th Cir. 1978) (noting that “the court is without jurisdiction to consider the petition” unless the application sets forth adequate reasons or explanations for granting next friend status).
Here, no motion or request to proceed as next friend has been received from David Lester Straight. He therefore has failed to present the Court with sufficient information and documentation to satisfy his burden. Moreover, the motion prepared by Petitioner clearly shows that she is able to prosecute the case on her own. Accordingly, any request that David Lester Straight be authorized to proceed as “next friend” to Petitioner should be denied.
Despite claiming that she has been denied pens, paper, and access to the law library, she was able to prepare a 24-page, handwritten filing with citations to case law and legal authorities.
To the extent Petitioner attempts to designate David Lester Straight as her counsel or “attorney in-fact” in this action through a power of attorney, “she fails to understand that a power-of-attorney does not present an individual with the right to represent someone as ‘next friend' in a pro se capacity and to act as an actual attorney.” Schreck by & through Schreck v. City of Amarillo, No. 2:21-CV-220-Z-BR, 2021 WL 5178855, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 8, 2021) (“An ‘attorney-in-fact' designation is not a license to practice law”); see also Weber, 570 F.2d at 514 (“individuals not licensed to practice law by the state may not use the ‘next friend' device as an artifice for the unauthorized practice of law.”).
IV. RECOMMENDATION
The Writ of Coram Nobis, received on June 13, 2023 (doc. 10), should be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. any request that David Lester Straight be authorized to proceed as “next friend” to Petitioner should be denied.