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