Brown v. Huhn

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

EASTERN DIVISION

REGINALD GERON BROWN, )

by and through )

RICARDO ORLANDIS ELLIOT, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) No. 4:23-CV-00502 HEA

)

VALERIE HUHN, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the motion of Ricardo Elliot to proceed as next friend

on behalf of Reginald Brown, a civil detainee in Fulton State Hospital in Fulton, Missouri. [ECF

No. 3]. The motion will be denied, and this action will be dismissed.

Background

As background, petitioner Reginald Brown was indicted in St. Louis City Court on March

2, 2021, on two counts of assault in the first degree and two counts of armed criminal action. See

State v. Brown, No. 2022-CR02030-01 (22nd Jud. Cir., St. Louis City).1 On April 6, 2021, on the

Circuit Court’s own motion, the court ordered that petitioner’s mental competency be evaluated

pursuant to Missouri Revised Statute § 552.020. In compliance with the statute, the Circuit Court

suspended proceedings in the case.2 After the Missouri Department of Mental Health completed

1The Court takes judicial notice of this public record. See Levy v. Ohl, 477 F.3d 988, 991 (8th Cir. 2007)

(explaining that district court may take judicial notice of public state records); and Stutzka v. McCarville,

420 F.3d 757, 760 n.2 (8th Cir. 2005) (stating that courts “may take judicial notice of judicial opinions and

public records”).

2Missouri law provides for competency evaluations under Mo.Rev.Stat. § 552.020, and it requires that the

evaluations be completed within sixty (60) days of being ordered. See § 552.020.2. During the pendency of

the evaluation, the court may order “the accused be committed to or held in a suitable hospital facility.” Id.

the psychiatric report on June 10, 2021, and submitted it to the Court, the Circuit Court placed the

criminal case on the “mental inactive docket” on June 29, 2021. Petitioner was committed to the

custody of the Missouri Department of Mental Health at that time. The Circuit Court’s Order

stated:

The Director of the Department of Mental Health. . .shall evaluate the defendant’s

mental ability and the capacity within six months from the date of this order and

submit to the Court a progress report including a medical opinion of the likelihood

of the defendant-patient being mentally fit to proceed in accordance with Sec.

552.030.10(1) RSMo.2000. Said report shall be submitted within 30 days after

evaluation.

A response, as well as a copy of petitioner’s mental exam, was filed with the Circuit Court

on April 25, 2022, by the Missouri Department of Mental Health. On November 2, 2022, a motion

was made by the Assistant General Counsel for the Missouri Department of Mental Health for the

continued commitment of petitioner. A copy of petitioner’s latest mental exam was filed

simultaneously therewith. The Circuit Court found:

[O]n the basis of the report, that Defendant, Reginald G. Brown, is not now

mentally fit to proceed.

Therefore, it is ORDERED pursuant to § 520.020, RSMo that:

1. The criminal proceedings in this case shall continue to be suspended.

2. Defendant’s commitment to the custody of the Director of the Missouri Department

of Mental Health shall continue until further order of this Court.

3. The head of the facility in which Defendant is detained, or a qualified Designee,

shall within 180 days after the date of this Order examine him to ascertain whether

at § 552.020.5. If the contents of the evaluation are contested, the court must hold a hearing to determine

the accused's “mental fitness to proceed.” Id. at § 552.020.7. At such a hearing, “the accused is presumed

to have the mental fitness to proceed.” Id. at § 552.020.8. Upon a finding of mental unfitness, the criminal

proceedings must be suspended, and the accused committed “to the director of the department of mental

health.” Id. at § 552.020.9. Six months after a commitment, the court must order an examination by the

head of the mental health facility to ascertain whether the accused is fit to proceed. Id. at § 552.020.11(1).

A person so committed “shall be entitled to a [state law] writ of habeas corpus upon proper petition to the

court that committed him.” Id. at § 552.020.10.

he is mentally fit to proceed, and if not, whether there is a substantial probability

that he will attain mental fitness to proceed to trial in the foreseeable future.

4. A written report of the examination be filed with the clerk of this Court, within

thirty (30) days thereafter.

It appears that the next report from the Missouri Department of Mental Health regarding

petitioner’s mental status is due to the Circuit Court on or about May 22, 2023.

Discussion

The Supreme Court has stated that to obtain “next friend” standing in a habeas matter, (1)

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, and (2) the next

friend must be truly dedicated to the best interests of the real party in interest. See Whitmore v.

Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163 (1990); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)

In his motion to proceed as next friend on behalf of pro se civil detainee Reginald Brown,

Mr. Elliot, a non-attorney who is proceeding pro se,3 fails to give any indication why there is a

need to proceed on behalf of petitioner. At this time, petitioner has not been declared incompetent

or disabled, although he has been detained by the State of Missouri since April of 2021. Moreover,

there is no indication that petitioner is inaccessible to Mr. Elliot, as it appears that he has filled out

the motion for next friend along with Mr. Elliot. Nonetheless, there is no indication in the motion

as to the relationship between Mr. Elliot and petitioner, and there is no indication as to why

petitioner cannot speak for himself in this action, i.e., petitioner is not “inaccessible” as the term

is used in Whitmore. Id. That is, petitioner could appear on his own behalf and prosecute his own

action in this Court.

3A non-attorney cannot litigate on behalf of a pro se petitioner. See Crozier for A.C. v. Westside Cmty. Sch.

Dist., 973 F.3d 882, 887 (8th Cir. 2020) (non-attorney parents cannot litigate on behalf of their minor

children); see also Elustra v. Mineo, 595 F.3d 699, 704 (7th Cir. 2010) (next friends may not conduct

litigation pro se). This is but one of the insurmountable issues in this action.

Furthermore, Mr. Elliot has attached to the motion for next friend a copy of a document

titled “Durable Power of Attorney with General Powers for All Purposes.” However, the document

does not appear to be signed by petitioner.* And additionally, there is no indication in the motion

for next friend as to why there is a need for a Durable Power of Attorney in this action, let alone

from a non-attorney pro se litigant attempting to proceed on behalf of another pro se litigant in a

habeas action.

Based on all of the aforementioned reasons, Mr. Elliot’s motion to proceed as next friend

on behalf of Reginald Brown will be denied and this matter will be dismissed.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Ricardo Elliot’s motion to proceed as next friend on

behalf of Reginald Brown is DENIED [ECF No. 2] and this action is DISMISSED, without

prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s application for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis [ECF No. 3] is DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue.

An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Opinion, Memorandum and Order.

Dated this 28" day of April, 2023

HENRYEDWARD AUTREY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

‘There is signature line for “Principal” however the handwriting on the line is illegible. Additionally, this

handwriting does not match the handwriting contained in the motion for next friend that is purported to

belong to Reginald Brown.