Dixson v. Beard

Filing 19

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED AS NEXT FRIEND by Judge Claudia Wilken denying 16 Motion. (CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ATTACHED) (napS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2015)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

DEMETROIS TERRELL DIXSON,

Case No.

14-cv-05069-CW (PR)

Petitioner,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO PROCEED AS “NEXT
FRIEND”

5
v.
6
7

JEFFREY BEARD, ,
Respondent.

8
9

Petitioner, Demetrois Terrell Dixson, an inmate incarcerated
at the Tallahatchie County Correctional Facility in Tutwiler,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Mississippi, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus

12

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state criminal

13

conviction from the Alameda County Superior Court.

14

dated January 12, 2015, the Court directed Respondent to show

15

cause why the petition should not be granted.

16

filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds that it is

17

procedurally defaulted or, in the alternative, that it is

18

untimely.

19

Petitioner’s request for a sixty-day extension of time to file

20

his opposition.

21

grant a friend, James C. Lewis, leave to file papers and assist

22

Petitioner in the instant matter as his “next friend.”

23

No. 16.)

24

In an Order

Respondent has

In an Order dated August 5, 2015, the Court granted

Petitioner has since filed a motion for leave to

(Docket

A person other than the detained person may file an

25

application for a writ of habeas corpus and establish standing as

26

a “next friend.”

27

A next friend does not himself become a party to the habeas

28

petition, “but simply pursues the cause on behalf of the detained

Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163 (1990).

1

person, who remains the real party in interest.”

2

two firmly rooted prerequisites to “next friend” standing:

Id.

There are

3
First, a next friend must provide an adequate
explanation--such as inaccessibility, mental
incompetency, or other disability--why the real
party in interest cannot appear on his own behalf to
prosecute the action. 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. The burden is on the next friend
clearly to establish the propriety of his status and
thereby justify the jurisdiction of the court.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Id. at 163-64 (citations omitted).
first prong.

Petitioner has not met the

He does not show inaccessibility, mental

incompetency,1 or other disability.

Rather, his request seems to

be based on the fact that because he is incarcerated in a
“private prison outside of California” and pro se, it takes extra
time to send work product to and from Mr. Lewis, who is not an
attorney2 but who “informally” assisted Petitioner “since the last
superior court filing [on] October 21, 2013,” and this makes it
difficult to meet court deadlines.
2.

Pet’r Next Friend Mot. at 1-

These circumstances make Petitioner no different from the

many pro se prisoners who appear in federal court.

To the extent

Petitioner requires more time to meet court deadlines, he may
obtain extensions of time upon a showing of good cause, like the

24
25
26
27
28

1

Petitioner’s claim of incompetency is unavailing as it is not
based on mental incompetency and, instead, it is based on the
fact that the state superior court denied his pro se petition as
“improperly brought” and “untimely.” Pet’r Next Friend Mot. at
3.
2
Petitioner states that Mr. Lewis is a “person with a paralegal
history.” Pet’r Next Friend Mot. at 2.
2

1
2

extension he was granted in the Court’s August 5, 2015 Order.
Petitioner seems to meet the second prong of the test, which

3

requires that the putative next friend have both a significant

4

relationship with the real party in interest and true dedication

5

to his or her interests.

6

Professors v. Bush, 310 F.3d 1153, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 2002).

7

Petitioner has included a document entitled, “Proxy Agreement,”

8

which describes the nature of their relationship or avers that he

9

trusts that Mr. Lewis is truly dedicated to his interests.

See Coalition of Clergy, Lawyers and

Pet’r

Next Friend Mot., Attach. at 5-7.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

has submitted a declaration indicating that he is willing to

12

“accept the proxy” and continue helping Petitioner, who he

13

believes is an “innocent man.”

14

ready availability of reasonable time extensions to allow

15

Petitioner to continue to receive help from Mr. Lewis if he

16

wishes to do so and still meet Court deadlines, and his failure

17

to satisfy the first prong of the “next friend” test,

18

Petitioner’s motion is DENIED.

19

The Court notes that Mr. Lewis

Id. at 10.

However, given the

As mentioned above, Petitioner has been granted an extension

20

of time to file his opposition to Respondent’s pending motion to

21

dismiss.

22

shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner a reply within

23

fourteen days of receipt of an opposition.

His opposition is due on October 5, 2015.

24

This Order terminates Docket No. 16.

25

Respondent

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27
28

Dated: September 9, 2015
___________________________
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
3

1
2

UNITED STATES D
D
DISTRICT C
COURT

3

NORTHER DISTRIC OF CALI
RN
CT
IFORNIA

4
5

DEMETROIS TERRELL DIXSON,
D
S
L

Case No. 1
14-cv-05069
9-CW

Plaintiff,
6
v.

CERTIFIC
CATE OF S
SERVICE

7
8

JE
EFFREY BE
EARD,
.
Defendant.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

I, the un
ndersigned, hereby certify that I am an employe in the Offi of the Clerk, U.S.
ee
ice
Dis
strict Court, Northern Di
istrict of Cal
lifornia.
That on September 9, 2015, I SERVED a tr and corre copy(ies) of the attac
n
S
rue
ect
ched, by
pla
acing said co
opy(ies) in a postage paid envelope a
d
addressed to the person(s hereinafte listed, by
s)
er
dep
positing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by pla
d
n
M
acing said co
opy(ies) into an inter-off delivery
o
ffice
y
rec
ceptacle loca in the Cl
ated
lerk's office.
.

16
17
18

De
emetrois Terr Dixson ID: DOC No F-23400
rell
I
o.
La Palma Correctional Cen (LPCC)
nter
550 North La Palma Road
01
d
Elo AZ 85131
oy,

19
20
21

ated: Septem
mber 9, 2015
Da

22
23

Su
usan Y. Soon
ng
Cl
lerk, United States Distr Court
d
rict

24
25
26

By
y:_________
___________
_______
N
Nichole Peric Deputy Cle to the
c,
erk
H
Honorable CL
LAUDIA WI
ILKEN

27
28
4