RISIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

DANIEL M. RISIS,

Petitioner,

v. Civil Action No. 25-16629 (GC)

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et al., MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Respondents.

Petitioner Daniel M. Risis is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

(Petition) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (§ 2241). (ECF No. 1.) According to the Petition,

Petitioner is confined at the Essex County Correctional Facility in Newark, New Jersey. (Id. at 1.)

Petitioner also submits a memorandum of law (ECF No. 1-1), a cover letter (ECF No. 1-2), a

proposed order (ECF No. 3), and a certificate of service (ECF No. 4). In addition, Petitioner moves

for an order to show cause (Motion for OTSC). (ECF No. 2; see also ECF Nos. 2-1 through 2-6

(Exhibits A through L), ECF No. 2-7 (inmate notification form), ECF No. 2-8 (notice of filing),

and ECF No. 2-9 (proposed order).) Petitioner also has filed a motion to permit him to appear in

civilian attire at all court proceedings (Motion to Appear in Civilian Attire). (ECF No. 2.)

Local Civil Rule 81.2 provides:

Unless prepared by counsel, petitions to this Court for a writ of

habeas corpus . . . shall be in writing (legibly handwritten in ink or

typewritten), signed by the petitioner or movant, on forms supplied

by the Clerk.

L. Civ. R. 81.2(a). Petitioner did not use the habeas form supplied by the Clerk for § 2241

petitions, i.e., AO 242 (12/11) Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

In addition, Petitioner did not sign the Petition. The Petition instead was signed by Jamie

Resnick, who states:

I Jaime Resnick, certify under 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that I am the lawful

Power of Attorney for Daniel M. Risis and have transmitted this

petition at his express direction. I am not an attorney and do not act

as one. All communications between Mr. Risis and myself are

privileged, confidential, and protected under N.J.R.E. 504 and the

Crime Victims’ Rights Act (N.J.S.A. 52:4B-36).

(ECF No. 1 at 12.)

The federal habeas statute requires that a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “shall be in

writing signed and verified by the person for whose relief it is intended or someone acting in his

behalf.” 28 U.S.C. § 2242; see also Rule 2(c)(5) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in

the United States District Courts (applicable to § 2241 petitions through Rule 1(b) and requiring

the petition to be signed under penalty of perjury or by a person authorized to sign it for the

petitioner under § 2242). In limited circumstances, persons unable to prosecute their own actions

may have third persons— “next friends”—stand in for them. See Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S.

149, 161-62 (1990).

To qualify for “next friend” status, the third person must satisfy two requirements: (i)

“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 (citations omitted); (ii) “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 (citations omitted). “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 (citations

omitted). “[N]ext friend” standing “‘is by no means granted automatically to whomever seeks to

pursue an action on behalf of another,’ Id. at 163 (1990), and next friend habeas petitions are ‘rare.’

Figueroa v. Rivera, 147 F.3d 77, 82 (1st Cir. 1998).” Dyer ex rel. Dyer v. Warden of S. Woods

State Prison, No. 25-14807, 2025 WL 2783868, at *2 (D.N.J. Sept. 30, 2025).

To the extent that the Petition could be construed as invoking the “next friend” doctrine,

the Court concludes that Resnick does not satisfy either the “adequate explanation” or the “best

interests” requirement. In particular, “a power of attorney does not confer ‘next friend’ status.”

Id. (quoting Montelione ex rel. Montelione v. Corbett, No. 08-790, 2008 WL 1994816, at *1 (M.D.

Pa. May 2, 2008)). Furthermore, “the Third Circuit has held that a ‘non-attorney cannot represent

another party, even if acting as a next friend.’” Kerrigan v. Ortiz, No. 21-1027, 2021 WL 6424641,

at *2 (D.N.J. Dec. 6, 2021) (quoting Schlemmer v. Cent. Intel. Agency, 804 F. App’x 127, 128 (3d

Cir. 2020). Accordingly, as a layperson, Resnick cannot litigate this case as a next friend without

retaining an attorney.

Petitioner also did not submit the five-dollar filing fee for a habeas petition, see 28 U.S.C.

§ 1914(a), or apply to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).

IT IS, therefore, on this day 17th day of October, 2025, ORDERED as follows:

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall administratively terminate this case, without

filing the Petition; Petitioner is informed that administrative termination is not a “dismissal” for

purposes of the statute of limitations, and that if the case is reopened, it is not subject to the statute

of limitations time bar if it was originally filed timely, see Papotto v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins.

Co., 731 F.3d 265, 275 (3d Cir. 2013) (distinguishing administrative terminations from

dismissals); Jenkins v. Superintendent of Laurel Highlands, 705 F.3d 80, 84 n.2 (3d Cir. 2013)

(describing prisoner mailbox rule generally); Dasilva v. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 413 F. App’x 498, 502

(3rd Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (“[The] statute of limitations is met when a [motion] is submitted to

the clerk before the statute runs . . . .”); and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall forward to Petitioner a blank § 2241 form—

AO 242 (12/11) Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241—as well as a blank

form DNJ-Pro Se-007-B-(Rev. 09/09) by regular U.S. mail; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court’s service of the blank § 2241 form shall not be

construed as this Court’s finding that the petition is or is not timely, that the Petitioner’s claims are

or are not unexhausted, or that his claims are or are not procedurally defaulted; and it is further

ORDERED that if Petitioner (or Resnick as his alleged “next friend”) wishes to reopen

this case, he or she shall so notify the Court, in a writing addressed to the Clerk of the Court,

Clarkson S. Fisher Building & U.S. Courthouse, 402 East State Street, Trenton, NJ 08608, within

thirty (30) days of the date of entry of this Memorandum and Order; the writing shall include (i) a

complete habeas petition on the appropriate form; (ii) a complete IFP application or the five-dollar

filing fee; and (iii) either the complete habeas petition on the appropriate form signed by Petitioner,

or sufficient evidence that Petitioner is unable to proceed on his own behalf and that Resnick

otherwise meets the requirements for “next friend” status; and it is further

ORDERED that upon receipt of the prescribed writing, the Clerk of the Court will be

directed to reopen this case; and it is further

ORDERD that the Motion for OTSC (ECF No. 2) and the Motion to Appear in Civilian

Attire (ECF No. 3) are DENIED without prejudice; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Memorandum and Order

upon Petitioner by regular U.S. mail. □□

antler

GEORGETTE CASTNER

United States District Judge