Opinion
3:12-cv-565
01-18-2013
MICHAEL PIERCE, Plaintiff, v. OFFICER SEALEY and OFFICER PARNELL, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This pro se prisoner's civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was filed by inmate Franklin Smith on behalf of inmate Michael Pierce, both of whom were in the Knox County Detention Facility at the time of filing; mail recently sent to Mr. Pierce at that facility was returned undelivered with the notation "no longer at this address." Mr. Smith signed Mr. Pierce's name to the complaint and he also signed an application to proceed in forma pauperis on behalf of Mr. Pierce. According to Mr. Smith, Mr. Pierce suffers from brain damage and is disabled.
As Mr. Smith notes, prisoners may receive assistance from fellow inmates in dealing with legal matters, including civil rights actions. Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 490 (1968). However, as a threshold requirement for Mr. Smith to have standing to pursue this complaint as a next friend for Mr. Pierce, he must show that Mr. Pierce is unable to litigate his own cause due to "inaccessibility, mental incompetence, or other disability" and he is "truly dedicated to the best interests" of Mr. Pierce. Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163-64 (1990). "The burden is on the next friend clearly to establish the propriety of his status[.]" Franklin v. Francis, 144 F.3d 429, 432 (6th Cir. 1998) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Even if the court makes the assumption that Mr. Smith is acting in Mr. Smith's best interest, there is absolutely no evidence, other than Mr. Smith's statement, that Mr. Pierce is incompetent or otherwise incapable of pursuing his own action. Mr. Smith must "demonstrate, not simply assert," Mr. Pierce's incompetence. West v. Bell, 242 F.3d 338, 341 (6th Cir. 2001). Thus, Mr. Smith has failed to bear his burden of showing that Mr. Pierce is unable to direct these proceedings on his own behalf.
Based upon the foregoing, the application to proceed in forma pauperis on behalf of Mr. Pierce is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED. All other pending motions are DENIED as MOOT. The court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this action would not be taken in good faith and would be totally frivolous. See Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
ENTER:
Thomas W. Phillips
United States District Judge