Porter v. Breckon
Filing
7
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge David J. Novak on 09/04/2020. Copy mailed to counsel.(tjohn)
Case 3:20-cv-00527-DJN Document 7 Filed 09/04/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 33
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
KARON MARKEE PORTER,
Petitioner,
Civil No. 3:20cv527(DJN)
MICHAEL BRECKON,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Petitioner, a Virginia prisoner with counsel, submitted a petition under 28 U.S.C.§ 2254
and paid the full filing fee. Rule 2 ofthe Rules Goveming Section 2254 Cases requires that
petitions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254"be signed under penalty of peijury by the petitioner or by
a person authorized to sign it for the petitioner under 28 U.S.C. § 2242." Rules Goveming
§ 2254 Cases in U.S. District Courts, Rule 2(c)(5). The current petition does not comply with
Rule 2.
The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 2(c) explain: "The Committee envisions that the
courts will apply third-party, or 'next-friend,' standing analysis in deciding whether the signer
was actually authorized to sign the petition on behalfofthe petitioner." Id, Advisory
Committee Notes, 2004 Amend. "[A] next fnend does not himself become a party to the habeas
corpus action in which he participates, but simply pursues the cause on behalfofthe detained
person, who remains the real party in interest." Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 294 F.3d 598,603(4th Cir.
2002)(some internal quotation marks omitted)(quoting Whitmore v. Arkansas,495 U.S. 149,
Case 3:20-cv-00527-DJN Document 7 Filed 09/04/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 34
163(1990)). "[T]he availability of next friend standing as an avenue into federal court is strictly
limited." Id.
To establish "next friend" standing,(1)the'"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,'" and (2)the "next friend"
must also establish that he is "'truly dedicated to the best interests ofthe person on whose behalf
he seeks to litigate'" and has "'a significant relationship with the real party in interest.'" Id. at
603-04(some internal quotation marks omitted)(quoting Whitmore,495 U.S. at 163-64). "'The
burden is on the next friend clearly to establish the propriety of his status and thereby justify the
jurisdiction ofthe court.'" Id. at 603(some internal quotation marks omitted)(quoting
Whitmore,495 U.S. at 164).
By Memorandum Order entered on July 15,2020 the Court informed Petitioner that his
current submission failed to demonstrate that counsel qualifies as a "next friend" and fails to
comply with Rule 2(c)(5). Accordingly, the Court directed Petitioner to submit, within twentyone(21)days ofthe date ofentry thereof, a petition complying with Rule 2 or argument as to
why counsel should qualify as a "next friend." The Court warned Petitioner that the failure to
comply with the Memorandum Order would result in the dismissal ofthe action.
More than twenty-one(21) have elapsed since the entry ofthe July 15,2020
Memorandum Order and Petitioner has not responded. Accordingly, the action will be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court will DENY a certificate of appealability.
Case 3:20-cv-00527-DJN Document 7 Filed 09/04/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 35
An appropriate order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.
Let the Clerk file a copy ofthe Memorandum Opinion electronically and send a copy to
Petitioner.
David J. Novak
United States District^dge
Richmond, Virginia
Dated: September 4.2020
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?