Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 GENEVIEVE MORRISON, Case No. 1:25-cv-01591-JLT-EPG-HC

12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF

13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

14 TUOLUMNE COUNTY SHERIFF,

15 Respondent.

16

17 I.

18 BACKGROUND

19 On November 17, 2025, Nicholas Morrison filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on

20 behalf of his wife, Genevieve Morrison, who is a state pretrial detainee. (ECF No. 1.) On

21 November 21, 2025, Mr. Morrison filed a motion for temporary restraining order (“TRO”). (ECF

22 No. 5.) That same day, the assigned district judge denied the motion for TRO in a minute order,

23 stating that: (1) “Mr. Morrison may not represent his wife in this litigation”; (2) “Ms. Morrison

24 has been held in ‘red classification’ for two months, undercutting any claim that a true

25 emergency exists now”; and (3) Younger abstention applies. (ECF No. 8.)

26 On November 21, 2025, the Court ordered that within forty-five days, Ms. Morrison must

27 notify the Court in writing that she will appear on her own behalf to prosecute this habeas action

or Mr. Morrison must secure licensed counsel and said counsel shall file a notice of appearance

1 in this matter because Mr. Morrison may not prosecute this action pro se on his wife’s behalf.

2 (ECF No. 9.)

3 On December 8, 2025, the Court received an emergency notice of imminent involuntary

4 medication and retaliatory isolation submitted by Mr. Morrison. (ECF No. 11.) The Court

5 ordered Respondent to file a response to the emergency notice in an abundance of caution given

6 the allegations of forced administration of psychotropic medication. (ECF No. 12.) On December

7 11, 2025, Respondent filed a response, including a copy of the Tuolumne County Superior Court

8 order authorizing involuntary medication pursuant to Sell v. United States. (ECF No. 14.)

9 On January 14, 2026, Mr. Morrison filed a notice, wherein he states that a petition for

10 writ of mandamus and other emergency motions are pending in the United States Court of

11 Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Ms. Morrison has been adjudicated incompetent in state criminal

12 proceedings and thus is presently unable to prosecute this action pro se, and Mr. Morrison is

13 unable to secure licensed counsel. (ECF No. 16.)

14 II.

15 DISCUSSION

16 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases1 requires preliminary review of a

17 habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered

18 to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the

19 petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254

20 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

21 “‘[N]ext friends’ appear in court on behalf of detained prisoners who are unable, usually

22 because of mental incompetence or inaccessibility, to seek relief themselves.” Whitmore v.

23 Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 162 (1990) (citing United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11,

24 13, n.3 (1955)). However, “‘next friend’ standing is by no means granted automatically to

25

1 “[T]he general grant of habeas authority in § 2241 is available for challenges by a state prisoner who is

26 not in custody pursuant to a state court judgment – for example, a defendant in pre-trial detention or

awaiting extradition.” Dominguez v. Kernan, 906 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation

27 mark and citation omitted). The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases apply to § 2241 habeas petitions.

See Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (“The district court may apply any or all of

1 whomever seeks to pursue an action on behalf of another.” Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 163. In order

2 to establish standing, the next friend must: (1) “provide an adequate explanation—such as

3 inaccessibility, mental incompetence, or other disability—why the real party in interest cannot

4 appear on his own behalf to prosecute the action”; and (2) “be truly dedicated to the best interests

5 of the person on whose behalf he seeks to litigate.” Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 163 (internal citations

6 omitted). “The burden is on the ‘next friend’ clearly to establish the propriety of his status and

7 thereby justify the jurisdiction of the court.” Id. at 164.

8 “[C]ourts have routinely adhered to the general rule prohibiting pro se plaintiffs from

9 pursuing claims on behalf of others in a representative capacity.” Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc.,

10 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008) (collecting cases). See Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d

11 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[A] non-lawyer ‘has no authority to appear as an attorney for others

12 than himself.” (quoting C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir.

13 1987)); C.E. Pope Equity Trust, 818 F.2d at 697 (“Although a non-attorney may appear in propia

14 persona in his own behalf, that privilege is personal to him.”).

15 “Although the federal habeas corpus statute permits a ‘next friend’ to pursue a habeas

16 action on behalf of another in certain circumstances, see 28 U.S.C. § 2246, the statute does not

17 authorize the ‘next friend’ to proceed without an attorney.” United States v. Caputo, No. 1:14-cr-

18 00041-JLT-SKO-1, 2023 WL 5207318, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2023). See Hinojosa v.

19 Warden, SATF/SP, No. 2:22-cv-1780 DB P, 2023 WL 2874169, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2023)

20 (“[E]ven if Mr. Bland’s motion for ‘next friend’ status were granted, he would have to be

21 represented by counsel in order to proceed as a ‘next friend’ because pro se litigants have no

22 authority to represent anyone other than themselves.”), report and recommendation adopted,

23 2023 WL 4711303 (E.D. Cal. July 24, 2023). Additionally, the Local Rules of Practice for the

24 United States District Court, Eastern District of California provide in pertinent part:

25 Any individual who is representing himself or herself without an

attorney must appear personally or by courtesy appearance by an

26 attorney admitted to the Bar of this Court and may not delegate

that duty to any other individual, including husband or wife, or any

27 other party on the same side appearing without an attorney. Any

individual representing himself or herself without an attorney is

1 Rules, and all other applicable law. All obligations placed on

“counsel” by these Rules apply to individuals appearing in propria

2 persona. Failure to comply therewith may be ground for dismissal,

judgment by default, or any other sanction appropriate under these

3 Rules. A corporation or other entity may appear only by an

attorney.

4

5 L.R. 183(a) (emphasis added).

6 “Thus, in an action in which the sole plaintiff is incapacitated and cannot proceed pro se,

7 the plaintiff must be represented by competent counsel, or alternatively, the action must be

8 dismissed without prejudice.” Complot v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, No. CV-23-02348-PHX-

9 DWL, 2023 WL 8234271, at *3 (D. Ariz. Nov. 28, 2023) (citing Johns v. Cnty. of San Diego,

10 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997)).

11 Assuming that Mr. Morrison qualifies for next-friend status, which would permit him to

12 initiate the instant petition, it does not allow him to prosecute this action pro se on his wife’s

13 behalf. The Court previously provided Ms. Morrison the opportunity to notify the Court in

14 writing that she will appear on her own behalf to prosecute this habeas action and previously

15 provided Mr. Morrison the opportunity to secure licensed counsel to proceed on his wife’s

16 behalf. (ECF No. 9.) As noted in section I, supra, Mr. Morrison has notified the Court that Ms.

17 Morrison has been adjudicated incompetent in state criminal proceedings and thus is presently

18 unable to prosecute this action pro se, and Mr. Morrison is unable to secure licensed counsel.

19 (ECF No. 16.)

20 III.

21 RECOMMENDATION & ORDER

22 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for

23 writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED without prejudice.

24 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District

25 Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local

26 Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within

27 THIRTY (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may file

written objections, no longer than fifteen (15) pages, including exhibits, with the Court and

1 | serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

2 | Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The assigned United States District Court Judge will

3 | then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are

4 | advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

5 | District Court’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v.

6 | Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9] Dated: _ January 20, 2026 [spe ey —

10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28