Rantz v. Hartley et al

Filing 11

ORDER denied without prejudice 10 Request for the Court to Change the Petitioner/Applicant's Filed Habeas Corpus Petition to "Next Friend" Status, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 6/05/2013.(skl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 13-cv-00883-BNB
GEOFFREY DEL RANTZ,
Applicant,
v.
STEVE HARTLEY, and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO,
Respondents.

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the “Request for the Court to Change the
Petitioner/Applicant’s Filed Habeas Corpus Petition to ‘Next Friend’ Status” (ECF No.
10) filed by Applicant, Geoffrey Del Rantz, and his mother, Debra Pribbenow. Applicant
is a prisoner in the custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections (“DOC”) at the
Arkansas Valley Correctional Facility in Ordway, Colorado.
Applicant initiated this action by filing pro se an Application for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF No. 1) challenging the validity of a state
court conviction. On April 8, 2013, the court ordered Respondents to file a Pre-Answer
Response limited to addressing the affirmative defenses of timeliness under 28 U.S.C. §
2244(d) and exhaustion of state court remedies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A) if
Respondents intend to raise either or both of those defenses in this action. On May 29,
2013, Respondents filed their Pre-Answer Response (ECF No. 13) arguing that this
action is untimely and that some of Applicant’s claims are unexhausted and procedurally

defaulted.
Applicant and his mother allege in the “Request for the Court to Change the
Petitioner/Applicant’s Filed Habeas Corpus Petition to ‘Next Friend’ Status” that
Applicant “is a mentally ill individual who suffers from chronic symptoms of these
disorders” and that he is classified by the DOC “as a P-3(c), which is the highest form of
mental disability in the prison population.” (ECF No. 10 at 2.) Applicant and his mother
further allege that, as a result of Applicant’s symptoms and the side effects of his
prescribed medications, he “cannot be relied upon or trusted to make the needed critical
decisions in his Habeas Petition.” (ECF No. 10 at 5.) Therefore, Applicant and his
mother ask that she be allowed to prosecute this action on Applicant’s behalf as his next
friend. According to Applicant and his mother, she “is the one who completed the
original Habeas Corpus Petition on the Petitioner’s behalf with the petitioner’s consent.”
(ECF No. 10 at 4.)
Applicant is correct that habeas corpus relief may be sought in federal court by a
person acting as next friend to the real party in interest. See 28 U.S.C. § 2242
(“Application for a writ of habeas corpus shall be in writing signed and verified by the
person for whose relief it is intended or by someone acting in his behalf.”). However,
standing under § 2242 is not granted automatically to everyone seeking to proceed on
another’s behalf. See Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163 (1990). The
requirements that must be met to have standing to litigate a habeas corpus action on
behalf of another person under § 2242 include the following:
First, a “next friend” must provide an adequate explanation - such as
inaccessibility, mental incompetence, or other disability - why the real
party in interest cannot appear on his own behalf to prosecute the action.
2

Second, the “next friend” must be truly dedicated to the best interests of
the person on whose behalf he seeks to litigate.
Id. It also has been suggested that a “next friend” must have some significant
relationship with the real party in interest. Id. at 163-64.
Even assuming Applicant’s mother could meet these standing requirements,
which the court does not address, the motion for next friend status will be denied
because Applicant’s mother may not act as Applicant’s next friend unless she is
represented by counsel. See Meeker v. Kercher, 782 F.2d 153, 154 (10th Cir. 1986)
(per curiam) (holding that a minor child cannot bring suit through a parent acting as next
friend unless the parent is represented by counsel). The motion will be denied without
prejudice to being refiled by counsel. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the “Request for the Court to Change the Petitioner/Applicant’s
Filed Habeas Corpus Petition to ‘Next Friend’ Status” (ECF No. 10) is DENIED without
prejudice.
DATED June 5, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

3