Huckabee v. Medical Staff at CSATF et al

Filing 82

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Authorization for Inmate Navarro's "Next Friend", signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 9/11/13. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTHONY CRAIG HUCKABEE,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
MEDICAL STAFF at CSATF, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:09-cv-00749-LJO-BAM PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
AUTHORIZATION FOR INMATE “NEXT
FRIEND” (ECF No. 79)

17

I.

Background

18

Plaintiff Anthony Craig Huckabee (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner, initiated this civil rights action

19

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 28, 2009. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s second amended

20

complaint, filed on August 21, 2012, for (1) deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in

21

violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Diaz, McGuiness, Wu, Bhatt, Nguyen, Garcia,

22

Jimenez, Jeffreys, Chief Medical Officer at CSATF, and Chief Pharmacist at CSATF; (2) negligence

23

against Defendants Diaz, Jeffreys, Jimenez; (3) medical malpractice against Defendants McGuiness,

24

Wu, Bhatt and Nguyen; (4) violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code § 51,

25

against all defendants; and (5) negligent infliction of emotional distress against all defendants.

26

On July 26, 2013, the Court granted appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw and substituted

27

Plaintiff in pro se. (ECF No. 64.) The Court subsequently directed Plaintiff to either file a motion for

28

the appointment of counsel or a statement that he does not request the appointment of counsel. (ECF
1

1

No. 65.) On August 14, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 73.)

2

On August 20, 2013, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request for appointed counsel. (ECF No. 74.)

3

Thereafter, on September 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed the instant notice of declaration and authorization for

4

inmate “next friend.” Plaintiff requests that the Court grant inmate Henry C. Navarro “next friend”

5

recognition and allow him to read all papers in this matter, search the law library, prepare answers,

6

advise on strategies and author all future responses in this case. (ECF No. 79.)

7

II.

8

Inmate Navarro cannot proceed on Plaintiff’s behalf in this action. Generally, a litigant must

9

Discussion

assert his or her own legal rights and interests. Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 410,111 S.Ct. 1364

10

(1991). As inmate Navarro is not the named plaintiff, he lacks standing to allege violations of

11

Plaintiff’s constitutional rights in this action. Powers, 499 U.S. at 410; Thompson v. Thomas, 1998

12

WL 398150, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 13, 1998). Further, as inmate Navarro is not an attorney, he

13

cannot represent another inmate in a pro se capacity. Cf. Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661,

14

664-65 (9th Cir. 2008) (pro se litigant cannot represent a person or entity other than himself in federal

15

court). Plaintiff’s citation to habeas and other proceedings are inapposite. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

16

request to appoint inmate Navarro as “next friend” shall be denied.
The Court makes no determination as to the appropriateness of Plaintiff consulting and/or

17
18

receiving assistance from other inmates, including inmate Navarro, in his prosecution of this action or

19

in the preparation of motions or other pleadings. However, Plaintiff is reminded of his obligation to

20

personally sign every pleading, written motion, or other paper presented to this Court. Fed. R. Civ. P.

21

11(a).

22

III.

Conclusion

23

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s request for authorization of inmate Navarro’s “next friend”

24

status is DENIED.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

September 11, 2013

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28
2