Genevieve Morrison v. Tuolumne County Sheriff

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: November 24, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-01591
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9 GENEVIEVE MORRISON, Case No. 1:25-cv-01591-JLT-EPG-HC

10 Petitioner, ORDER REGARDING NEXT FRIEND STANDING AND PROCEEDING WITH 11 v. ATTORNEY

12 TUOLUMNE COUNTY SHERIFF, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO MAIL GENEVIEVE MORRISON COPY 13 Respondent. OF THE PETITION AND TO MAIL NICHOLAS MORRISON COPY OF ORDER 14 15 I. 16 BACKGROUND 17 On November 17, 2025, Nicholas Morrison filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on 18 behalf of his wife, Genevieve Morrison, who is a state pretrial detainee currently housed at the 19 Tuolumne County Jail. (ECF No. 1.) On November 21, 2025, Mr. Morrison filed a motion for 20 temporary restraining order (“TRO”). (ECF No. 5.) That same day, the assigned district judge 21 denied the motion for TRO in a minute order, stating that: (1) “Mr. Morrison may not represent 22 his wife in this litigation”; (2) “Ms. Morrison has been held in ‘red classification’ for two 23 months, undercutting any claim that a true emergency exists now”; and (3) Younger abstention 24 applies. (ECF No. 8.) 25 II. 26 DISCUSSION 27 “‘[N]ext friends’ appear in court on behalf of detained prisoners who are unable, usually because of mental incompetence or inaccessibility, to seek relief themselves.” Whitmore v. 1 Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 162 (1990) (citing United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11, 2 13, n.3 (1955)). However, “‘next friend’ standing is by no means granted automatically to 3 whomever seeks to pursue an action on behalf of another.” Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 163. In order 4 to establish standing, the next friend must: (1) “provide an adequate explanation—such as 5 inaccessibility, mental incompetence, or other disability—why the real party in interest cannot 6 appear on his own behalf to prosecute the action”; and (2) “be truly dedicated to the best interests 7 of the person on whose behalf he seeks to litigate.” Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 163 (internal citations 8 omitted). “The burden is on the ‘next friend’ clearly to establish the propriety of his status and 9 thereby justify the jurisdiction of the court.” Id. at 164. 10 “[C]ourts have routinely adhered to the general rule prohibiting pro se plaintiffs from 11 pursuing claims on behalf of others in a representative capacity.” Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 12 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008) (collecting cases). See Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 13 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[A] non-lawyer ‘has no authority to appear as an attorney for others 14 than himself.” (quoting C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 15 1987)); C.E. Pope Equity Trust, 818 F.2d at 697 (“Although a non-attorney may appear in propia 16 persona in his own behalf, that privilege is personal to him.”). 17 “Although the federal habeas corpus statute permits a ‘next friend’ to pursue a habeas 18 action on behalf of another in certain circumstances, see 28 U.S.C. § 2246, the statute does not 19 authorize the ‘next friend’ to proceed without an attorney.” United States v. Caputo, No. 1:14-cr- 20 00041-JLT-SKO-1, 2023 WL 5207318, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2023). See Hinojosa v. 21 Warden, SATF/SP, No. 2:22-cv-1780 DB P, 2023 WL 2874169, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2023) 22 (“[E]ven if Mr. Bland’s motion for ‘next friend’ status were granted, he would have to be 23 represented by counsel in order to proceed as a ‘next friend’ because pro se litigants have no 24 authority to represent anyone other than themselves.”), report and recommendation adopted, 25 2023 WL 4711303 (E.D. Cal. July 24, 2023). Additionally, the Local Rules of Practice for the 26 United States District Court, Eastern District of California provide in pertinent part: 27 Any individual who is representing himself or herself without an attorney must appear personally or by courtesy appearance by an 1 that duty to any other individual, including husband or wife, or any other party on the same side appearing without an attorney. Any 2 individual representing himself or herself without an attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, these 3 Rules, and all other applicable law. All obligations placed on “counsel” by these Rules apply to individuals appearing in propria 4 persona. Failure to comply therewith may be ground for dismissal, judgment by default, or any other sanction appropriate under these 5 Rules. A corporation or other entity may appear only by an attorney. 6 7 L.R. 183(a) (emphasis added). 8 “Thus, in an action in which the sole plaintiff is incapacitated and cannot proceed pro se, 9 the plaintiff must be represented by competent counsel, or alternatively, the action must be 10 dismissed without prejudice.” Complot v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, No. CV-23-02348-PHX- 11 DWL, 2023 WL 8234271, at *3 (D. Ariz. Nov. 28, 2023) (citing Johns v. Cnty. of San Diego, 12 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997)). 13 Assuming that Mr. Morrison qualifies for next-friend status, which would permit him to 14 initiate the instant petition, it does not allow him to prosecute this action pro se on his wife’s 15 behalf. Therefore, either: (1) Mr. Morrison must secure licensed counsel to proceed, or (2) Ms. 16 Morrison must notify the Court in writing that she will appear on her own behalf to prosecute 17 this habeas action. Otherwise, the petition will be dismissed without prejudice. 18 The Court also notes that neither Ms. Morrison nor Mr. Morrison signed the petition 19 under penalty of perjury. (ECF No. 1 at 150.) Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases 20 states that the habeas petition must “be signed under penalty of perjury by the petitioner or by a 21 person authorized to sign it for the petitioner under 28 U.S.C. § 2242.” Rule 2(c)(5), Rules 22 Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.1 23 /// 24 /// 25 1 “[T]he general grant of habeas authority in § 2241 is available for challenges by a state prisoner who is 26 not in custody pursuant to a state court judgment – for example, a defendant in pre-trial detention or awaiting extradition.” Dominguez v. Kernan, 906 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation 27 mark and citation omitted). The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases apply to § 2241 habeas petitions. See Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (“The district court may apply any or all of 1 Il. 2 ORDER 3 Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that: 4 1. Within FORTY-FIVE (45) days from the date of service of this order, either: 5 (a) Genevieve Morrison must notify the Court in writing that: 6 i. her husband filed the instant federal habeas petition with her knowledge and 7 permission; 8 ii. she declares under penalty of perjury that the contents of the petition are true 9 and correct; and 10 ill. going forward, she will appear on her own behalf to prosecute this habeas 11 action; OR 12 (b) Nicholas Morrison must secure licensed counsel and said counsel shall file a 13 notice of appearance in this matter. 14 2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to: 15 (a) Send Genevieve Morrison a copy of the petition (ECF No. 1) along with this 16 order; and 17 (b) Send Nicholas Morrison a copy of this order at the address listed on ECF No. 1 at 18 150. 19 3. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation of dismissal for failure 20 to comply with a court order. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23| Dated: _November 24, 2025 [Je Fahey — UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28