Opinion
Civil Action No. 15-7165 (JBS)
10-15-2015
HAJES RABAIA, Petitioner, v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et al., Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
SIMANDLE, Chief Judge:
Before the Court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Docket Entry 1).
1. The unsigned petition appears to have been submitted on behalf of Hajes Rabaia, a state-sentenced inmate incarcerated at South Woods State Prison, by his brother. (Docket Entry 1 at 16).
2. Mr. Rabaia's brother lacks standing to pursue a habeas petition on Mr. Rabaia's behalf. A litigant who seeks to prosecute a habeas petition on behalf of someone else (or as a "next friend"), "must establish the requisite [Article III] standing to sue." Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 154; In re Zettlemoyer, 53 F.3d 24, 26-27 (3d Cir. 1995). "'[N]ext friend' standing is by no means granted automatically to whomever seeks to pursue an action on behalf of another." Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 163.
3. The Whitmore Court set out two requirements that should be met by the one seeking to qualify for "next friend" standing. "First, a 'next friend' must provide an adequate explanation — such as inaccessibility, mental incompetence, or other disability — why the real party in interest cannot appear on his own behalf to prosecute the action." Id. at 163. "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." Id. at 163-64 (internal citation omitted).
4. As Hajes Rabaia presently has another habeas petition pending before this Court, Rabaia v. New Jersey, No. 15-4809 (D.N.J. filed June 17, 2015), he is clearly able to pursue his own relief. His brother therefore lacks standing to act as a "next friend" for habeas purposes.
5. In the absence of a petition signed by someone with standing, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 2(c)(5), this Court lacks jurisdiction over the instant petition. This petition will be dismissed without prejudice to pursuing the previously-filed petition in No. 15-4809 (JBS).
6. A certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) is denied because jurists of reason would not find it debatable that dismissal of the Petition is correct. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
7. An appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion. October 15 , 2015
Date
s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Chief U.S. District Judge