Opinion
No. C 02-4275 TEH (pr)
October 25, 2002
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The court has received a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, from Solomon Edward Hughes, purportedly filed on behalf of Leroy P. Hughes, who is currently in custody in the Federal Detention Center in Dublin, California. The petition is now before the court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243. The petition must be dismissed because the person who filed it did not show his authority to do so and because the claims must be asserted in a motion or appeal filed in Leroy Hughes' federal criminal case.
The petition in this action lists Leroy P. Hughes as the person on whose behalf a writ is sought but is signed by Solomon Edward Hughes. The petition does not explain why Solomon Edward Hughes, rather than Leroy Hughes, has signed the papers on Leroy Hughes' behalf. 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, 163 (1990). There are two firmly rooted prerequisites to "next friend" standing:
First, a next friend must provide an adequate explanation — such as inaccessibility, mental incompetency, or other disability — why the real party in interest cannot appear on his own behalf to prosecute the action. Second, the next friend must be truly dedicated to the best interests of the person on whose behalf he seeks to litigate and it has been further suggested that a next friend must have some significant relationship with the real party in interest. The burden is on the next friend clearly to establish the propriety of his status and thereby justify the jurisdiction of the court.Id. at 163-64 (citations omitted). A person — even the parent of a detained person — may not simply show up in court and start litigating a habeas petition on behalf of someone else. There must be some explanation of why that person is litigating the legality of another person's custody. Due to the importance of the stakes at issue and because multiple petitions generally cannot be filed, the court has to be very certain that the right litigant is present. Solomon Edward Hughes has not shown why he should be allowed to pursue this action as the next friend of Leroy Hughes. The petition must be dismissed because it has not been signed and verified by the petitioner and has not been presented by one who has shown that he may proceed as the petitioner's next friend. It may be that Solomon Edward Hughes could cure this defect, but there is no need for him to file an amended petition because the petition must be dismissed for the separate and independent reason discussed below.
Court records reveal that, since the filing of the petition in this action challenging the legality of Leroy Hughes' detention by federal authorities, his status changed in a critical way. When the petition was filed, he apparently was an arrestee or pretrial detainee, but on September 30, 2002, he entered a guilty plea. See 9/30/02 Minutes inUnited States v. Hughes, No. CR 02-40109 CW. Hughes' sentencing is scheduled for December 23, 2002. Id. He is no longer a pretrial detainee and now is a convict. Hughes' claims that he is being held in violation of his rights under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States must be pursued in his federal criminal case, either in an appeal or in a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
The petition is dismissed without prejudice to Leroy Hughes pursuing his claims in his federal criminal case.
IT IS SO ORDERED
JUDGMENT
The petition is dismissed without prejudice to Leroy Hughes pursuing his claims in his federal criminal case.
IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.