Agneberg v. Rhodes
Filing
4
ORDER: The Clerk of Court must modify the docket for this case to reflect that it was filed by Mr. McMillan on behalf of Mr. Agneberg. The Declaration, docketed as a habeas petition, (Doc. 1 ) is denied to the extent that any relief is sought, and this action is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly and close this case. Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because reasonable jurists would not find the Court's procedural ruling debatable. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 3/26/24. (EJA)
1
2
SC
WO
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
10
Paul Thorid Agneberg, ex rel. Steven
Lee McMillan,
11
Petitioner,
12
v.
13
David Rhodes,
14
No.
CV-23-08556-PCT-JAT (JFM)
ORDER
Respondent.
15
16
On September 20, 2023, Steven Lee McMillan (“Declarant”) filed a Declaration
17
(Doc. 1), purportedly on behalf of Paul Thorid Agneberg, whom Declarant alleges was
18
improperly or unconstitutionally detained following a municipal court proceeding and is,
19
or was, unable to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus on his own behalf.1
20
I.
Declaration
21
Declarant purports to seek relief concerning Mr. Agneberg’s detention following
22
municipal court proceedings. It appears that Mr. Agneberg is currently being detained
23
pending criminal charges that were filed against him in Yavapai County Superior Court.2
24
Declarant identifies the Respondent as Yavapai County Sheriff David Rhodes. He appears
25
26
27
28
JDDL
1
Although this case is not identified, Declarant appears to be referring to Sedona
municipal court case# M-0346-CT-2023001499, which involved several criminal traffic
offenses. See https://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/publicaccess/caselookup.aspx, Search
First Name Paul Last Name Agneberg (last accessed Mar. 15, 2024).
2
See https://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/publicaccess/minutes.aspx
ma.cc/5Z4N-KMDC].
[https://per
1
to contend that Sedona Magistrate Schlegel violated Rule 32.2 of the Arizona Rules of
2
Criminal Procedure when he fined Mr. Agneberg $1,900, sentenced him to 10 days in jail,
3
and ordered that he be arrested without first affording Agneberg an opportunity to appeal
4
the fine and sentence. In addition, Declarant asserts that Mr. Agneberg’s conditions of
5
confinement violated Mr. Agneberg’s constitutional rights.
6
II.
Declarant Lacks Standing to Appear for Mr. Agneberg
7
Mr. McMillan filed this case on behalf of Mr. Agneberg. While a non-attorney may
8
represent himself, he has no authority to appear as an attorney for another. C.E. Pope
9
Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987). In rare circumstances, a
10
third party may, through counsel, seek habeas corpus relief on behalf of someone else as a
11
“next friend.” Declarant has failed to make an adequate showing to act as next friend on
12
Mr. Agneberg’s behalf. “‘[N]ext friend’ standing is by no means granted automatically to
13
whomever seeks to pursue an action on behalf of another.” Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495
14
U.S. 149, 163 (1990). In habeas corpus cases there are at least two prerequisites for “next
15
friend” standing. Id. The first is that the “‘next friend’ must present an adequate
16
explanation–such as inaccessibility, mental incompetence, or other disability–why the real
17
party in interest cannot appear on his own behalf to prosecute the action.” Id. (citations
18
omitted). The second is that the “‘next friend’ must be truly dedicated to the best interests
19
of the person on whose behalf he seeks to litigate” and that the “next friend” have some
20
significant relationship with the real party in interest. Id. “The burden is on the ‘next
21
friend’ clearly to establish the propriety of his status and thereby justify the jurisdiction of
22
the court.” Id. at 164.
23
Declarant asserts that Mr. Agneberg is unable to appear on his own behalf merely
24
because he is in jail and is or was held in solitary confinement. Declarant has neither
25
explained why Mr. Agneberg is unable to seek habeas corpus on his own behalf as many
26
detainees have, nor alleged any facts showing both a significant relationship with Agnberg
27
and a sincere dedication to Agneberg’s best interests. Accordingly, the Court concludes
28
that Mr. McMillan lacks standing to bring a habeas corpus action on behalf of Mr.
-2-
JDDL
1
Agneberg. The Declaration will be dismissed to the extent that any relief is sought, and
2
this case will be dismissed.
3
IT IS ORDERED:
4
5
6
7
(1)
The Clerk of Court must modify the docket for this case to reflect that it was
filed by Mr. McMillan on behalf of Mr. Agneberg.
(2)
The Declaration, docketed as a habeas petition, (Doc. 1) is denied to the
extent that any relief is sought, and this action is dismissed without prejudice.
8
(3)
The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly and close this case.
9
(3)
Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the
10
event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability
11
because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See
12
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
13
Dated this 26th day of March, 2024.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3JDDL
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?