The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
______________________________
:
SONYA DOBSON :
filing as next of friend :
for BRANDON DOBSON, :
:
Petitioner, : Civ. No. 20-5519 (NLH)
:
v. : OPINION
:
WARDEN, :
:
Respondent. :
______________________________:
APPEARANCES:
Sonya Dobson
757 Bedford Ave.
Columbus, OH 43205
Movant Pro se
Brandon Dobson
76569-061
FCI Fort Dix
Inmate Mail/Parcels
East: P.O. Box 2000
Fort Dix, NJ 08640
Petitioner Pro se
HILLMAN, District Judge
Sonya Dobson seeks to bring a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 as a next friend of her son,
Brandon Dobson, a prisoner at FCI Fort Dix. See ECF No. 1
(petition). For the following reasons, the petition is
dismissed without prejudice for lack of standing.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner Brandon Dobson is a federal inmate presently
serving his sentence at FCI Fort Dix, New Jersey. ECF No. 1.
On May 4, 2020, Ms. Dobson filed a request for home confinement
on Petitioner’s behalf. Id. She argues Petitioner suffers from
“severe Bilateral Maxillary Sinusitis and Minimal night ethmoid
sinusitis” and “[t]he Administration at FCI Fort Disc [sic] is
not prepared to meet its duty to provide care as required by the
Constitution.” Id. “God forbid he is infected by the Corona
Virus, his immune system would be to [sic] weak to fight the
virus, and a nonchalant health services administration that has
repeatedly failed to address Dobson's request for a sleep
breathing machine, would be even less inclined to provide care
now that there is a shortage of ventilators and other medical
supplies in New Jersey which also happens to be the second most
severe state for COVID 19.” Id.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Petitioner brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus
as a pro se litigant. The Court has an obligation to liberally
construe pro se pleadings and to hold them to less stringent
standards than more formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Higgs v. Attorney
Gen. of the U.S., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011), as amended
(Sept. 19, 2011) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106
(1976)). A pro se habeas petition and any supporting
submissions must be construed liberally and with a measure of
tolerance.
Nevertheless, a federal district court must dismiss a
habeas corpus petition if it appears from the face of the
petition that Petitioner is not entitled to relief. 28 U.S.C. §
2254 Rule 4 (made applicable through Rule 1(b)); see also
McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994); Siers v. Ryan, 773
F.2d 37, 45 (3d Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1025 (1989).
DISCUSSION
Ms. Dobson seeks to file this habeas petition as a next
friend on her son’s behalf. “[U]nder the ‘next friend’
doctrine, standing is allowed to a third person only if this
third person could file and pursue a claim in court on behalf of
someone who is unable to do so on his/her own.” In re Telfair,
745 F. Supp. 2d 536, 560 (D.N.J. 2010), aff’d in part, vacated
in part sub nom. Telfair v. Office of U.S. Attorney, 443 F.
App’x 674 (3d Cir. 2011). The Supreme Court has set forth two
requirements for asserting “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.” Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163
(1990). “Second, the ‘next friend’ must be truly dedicated to
the best interests of the person on whose behalf [she] 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. “The burden is on the ‘next friend’
clearly to establish the propriety of [her] status and thereby
justify the jurisdiction of the court.” Id. at 164.
As Petitioner’s mother, Ms. Dobson presumably meets the
significant relationship requirement. However, she has not
established that Petitioner is unable to pursue a habeas
petition on his own behalf. She asserts that “Mr. Dobson does
not have access to the courts as he currently has to share 2
typewriters with 500 inmates but is unable to wait due to the
steroids that are being prescribe[d] to him and causes
drowsiness.” ECF No. 1 at 1. Petitioner does not need to file
a typed habeas petition; a handwritten petition is acceptable so
long as it is legible. See Local Civil Rule 81.2(a). Because
there is an alternative method of filing, Ms. Dobson has not
shown that Petitioner is unable to file a habeas petition on his
own behalf.
In addition, “[i]n the federal courts, ‘parties may plead
and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel.’ This
provision authorizes only ‘two types of representation: “that by
an attorney admitted to the practice of law by a governmental
regulatory body and that by a person representing himself.”’”
Berrios v. New York City Hous. Auth., 564 F.3d 130, 132 (2d Cir.
2009) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1654; Lattanzio v. COMTA, 481 F.3d
137, 139 (2d Cir. 2007)). In other words, Petitioner can appear
on his own behalf or with an attorney to represent him. “A non-
attorney cannot represent another party, even if acting as a
next friend.” Schlemmer v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, No. 19-
3778, F. App’x , 2020 WL 2465203, at *1 (3d Cir. May 13,
2020) (unpublished)(citing Berrios).
The Court must dismiss the petition as Ms. Dobson lacks
standing to bring this petition on behalf of her son. The
dismissal is without prejudice to Mr. Dobson’s ability to file a
new § 2241 petition seeking this relief either on his own behalf
or with the assistance of counsel.1 Alternatively, if Ms. Dobson
is able to retain representation and establish that Mr. Dobson
is unable to file his own petition, she may move to reopen this
matter.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the petition is dismissed
for lack of standing. An appropriate Order follows.
Dated: May 19, 2020 s/ Noel L. Hillman
At Camden, New Jersey NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
1 The Court expresses no opinion on whether Mr. Dobson can
otherwise meet the requirements, including the exhaustion
requirement, of § 2241.