FENNELL-BAILLUM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

LAURA FENNELL-BAILLUM,

Next Friend acting on behalf of Robert

Fennell SDI0003310898C,

Petitioner, Civil Action No. 26-1576 (GC)

v. MEMORANDUM & ORDER

SUPERINTENDENT, NEW JERSEY STATE

PRISON et al

Respondents.

CASTNER, District Judge

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the submission of a pro se petition (Petition)

for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (§ 2241) by Laura Fennell-Baillum as the “next

friend” of Petitioner Robert Fennell, a prisoner allegedly incarcerated at New Jersey State Prison

in Trenton, New Jersey. (ECF No. 1.) Fennell-Baillum has also filed a motion to proceed in forma

pauperis (IFP Motion) (ECF No. 1-1), a motion to consolidate (Motion to Consolidate) the present

matter with Fennell v. New Jersey Department of Corrections, Civ. No. 25-15750-RMB (ECF No.

4), and two amended habeas petitions (ECF Nos. 5-2, 6).

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.”1 28 U.S.C. § 2242; see also Habeas Rule 2(c)(5) (requiring the petition to be signed under

penalty of perjury by the petitioner or by a person authorized to sign the petition 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: (1)

“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); (2) “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 (citations omitted). “The burden is on the ‘next friend’ clearly to establish

the propriety of his 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, and next friend habeas petitions are ‘rare.’” 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) (citing Figueroa v. Rivera, 147 F.3d 77, 82 (1st Cir. 1998)).

1 Under § 2241, habeas relief may be extended to a prisoner only when he “is in custody in

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3);

Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490 (1989) (per curiam). Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases (“Habeas Rule”), applicable to § 2241 petitions through Habeas Rule 1(b),

this Court is required to preliminarily review a petitioner's habeas petition and determine whether

it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to

relief in the district court.” Under this rule, a district court is “authorized to dismiss summarily

any habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on its face.” McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S.

849, 856 (1994). The Court has an obligation to liberally construe pro se filings. See Erickson v.

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).

According to Fennell-Baillum’s notarized verification, she is Petitioner’s sister, and

Petitioner is unable to personally pursue legal remedies due to his current circumstances, including

“his unlawful interstate transfer, severe restrictions on his communications, and his detention

under a misspelled version of his name, effectively rendering him incommunicado.” (ECF No. 1

at 7.) However, assuming arguendo that Fennell-Baillum satisfies the two requirements for “next

friend” standing, “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, Fennell-Baillum cannot litigate this case as a next friend for her

brother without retaining an attorney. See Ruiz Perez v. Soto, No. 25-16871, 2025 WL 3186962,

at *2 (D.N.J. Nov. 14, 2025).

For the foregoing reasons, the Court administratively terminates this matter. Within thirty

(30) days of the date of entry of this Memorandum and Order, Petitioner may reopen this matter

by: (1) submitting a complete and signed habeas petition on the proper form; and (2) either paying

the applicable filing fee or submitting a complete and signed IFP application.2 Alternatively,

2 Local Civil Rule 81.2(a) 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.

Under Local Civil Rule 81.2(b),

If the petition . . . is presented in forma pauperis it shall include an

affidavit (attached to the back of the form) setting forth information

which establishes that the petitioner . . . is unable to pay the fees and

costs of the proceedings. Whenever a Federal, State, or local

prisoner submits a . . . petition for a writ of habeas corpus, . . . and

seeks in forma pauperis status, the prisoner shall also submit an

affidavit setting forth information which establishes that the prisoner

within thirty (30) days of the date of entry of this Memorandum and Order, Fennell-Baillum may

reopen this matter if, through counsel, she: (1) files an amended habeas petition on Petitioner’s

behalf; (2) pays the applicable filing fee or applies for IFP; and (3) files a motion showing that she

satisfies the requirements for proceeding as Petitioner’s “next friend.” Because the Court is

administratively terminating this proceeding, the Motion to Consolidate and IFP Motion are denied

without prejudice.

IT IS, therefore, on this 14th day of May, 2026, ORDERED as follows:

1. The Clerk of the Court shall ADMINISTRATIVELY TERMINATE this matter.

2. Within thirty (30) days of the date of entry of this Memorandum and Order, Petitioner

may reopen this matter by: (1) submitting a complete and signed habeas petition on the

proper form; and (2) either paying the applicable filing fee or submitting a complete

and signed IFP application; alternatively, within thirty (30) days of the date of entry of

this Memorandum and Order, may reopen this matter if, through counsel, Fennell-

Baillum: (1) files an amended habeas petition on Petitioner’s behalf; (2) pays the

applicable filing fee or applies for IFP; and (3) files a motion showing that she satisfies

the requirements for proceeding as Petitioner’s “next friend.”

3. The IFP Motion (ECF No. 1-1) is DENIED without prejudice.

is unable to pay the fees and costs of the proceedings and shall

further submit a certification signed by an authorized officer of the

institution certifying (1) the amount presently on deposit in the

prisoner's prison account and, (2) the greatest amount on deposit in

the prisoner's prison account during the six-month period prior to

the date of the certification. The affidavit and certification shall be

in the forms attached to and made a part of these Rules as Appendix

P.

Accordingly, if Petitioner intends to proceed IFP, he must complete and submit the applicable

form (form DNJ-Pro Se-007-B-(Rev. 09/09).

4. The Motion to Consolidate (ECF No. 4) is DENIED without prejudice.

5. The Clerk of the Court shall TERMINATE the Motion pending at ECF No. 4.

6. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Memorandum and Order, a blank §

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

2241, a blank form DNJ-Pro Se-007-B-(Rev. 09/09), and a blank form AO 239 (Rev.

01/15) Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long

Form), upon Fennell-Baillum (Laura Fennell-Baillum, 14 E. Burton Ave, New Castle,

DE 10720) and Petitioner (Robert Fennell, 00031089C, New Jersey State Prison, PO

Box 861, Trenton, N.J. 08625) by regular United States mail.

Grog th Chatren

GEORGETTE CASTNER

United States District Judge