Opinion
21-CV-10907 (LTS)
07-26-2022
NICOLE LAYMAN, by Mark Marvin, Petitioner, v. SHERIFF, ORANGE COUNTY, NY, Respondent.
ORDER
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Mark Marvin, who is not an attorney, filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, seeking to act on behalf of Nicole Layman in connection with pending criminal charges against her in Orange County Court. Layman did not sign the petition. On January 14, 2022, the Court dismissed Marvin's premature petition without prejudice, on the ground that he failed to show that he had standing to act as “next friend” on Layman's behalf.
After this action was closed, Marvin filed multiple additional motions for reconsideration challenging the order of dismissal, which the Court denied by orders dated February 7, 2022, and April 8, 2022. (ECF 9, 11.) Marvin now brings a “motion for clarification” (ECF 12), a “motion for nunc pro tunc relief” (ECF 14), a “motion for review of findings” (ECF 15), and a motion arguing the merits of the petition (ECF 16). For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the motions in this closed action.
DISCUSSION
The Court dismissed Mark Marvin's Section 2254 petition on behalf of prisoner Nicole Layman on the ground that “[t]he burden is on the ‘next friend' to establish the propriety of his status and thereby justify the jurisdiction of the court.” Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163 (1990). At the time that Marvin brought the petition, Layman had not yet been sentenced and was represented by counsel in the criminal proceedings. Marvin's petition did not set forth any adequate reason for the need to resort to the “next friend” device, and on January 14, 2022, the petition was dismissed. The dismissal of this action was without prejudice to Layman, or her counsel, eventually bringing a new Section 2254 petition seeking relief on her behalf.
The Court noted in the order of dismissal (ECF 6) that, before bringing a Section 2254 petition, a petitioner must exhaust state court remedies. See O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, (1999) (holding that state courts must be given the first opportunity to review constitutional challenge to petitioner's confinement). This action does not affect Layman's opportunity to bring a habeas petition after exhaustion of her state court remedies.
The motions Marvin now brings are again signed solely by him. He argues in one motion that Layman's sentence is excessive. (ECF 14 at 1.) He also makes arguments that perjury by medical doctors is a crime and other substantive arguments indicating that, in his view, there were clear constitutional errors in Layman's criminal proceedings. (ECF 15-16.) The Court does not consider the merits of Marvin's arguments because the Court has already held, in the January 2022 order dismissing this action, that Marvin lacks standing to proceed on Layman's behalf. Marvin's motions are therefore denied, and this action remains closed.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Marvin's motions (ECF Nos. 12, 14-16) are denied. This action is closed. The Clerk of Court will accept for filing in this action only documents that are directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. If Marvin files other documents that are frivolous or meritless, the Court will direct him to show cause why he should not be barred from filing further documents in this action.
The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.