Marlon Garth Anthony Parris v. Merrick Garland, et al.

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedNovember 5, 2025
Docket2:25-cv-03186
StatusUnknown

This text of Marlon Garth Anthony Parris v. Merrick Garland, et al. (Marlon Garth Anthony Parris v. Merrick Garland, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Marlon Garth Anthony Parris v. Merrick Garland, et al., (D. Ariz. 2025).

Opinion

1 JL 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Marlon Garth Anthony Parris, No. CV-25-03186-PHX-JAT (JZB) 10 Petitioner, 11 v. ORDER 12 Merrick Garland, et al., 13 Respondents.

14 15 On August 29, 2025, Petitioner Marlon Garth Anthony Parris, by and through Aria 16 Janai Woods as Petitioner’s purported “next friend,” filed a pro se Petition Under 28 U.S.C. 17 § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Petitioner is an immigration detainee who previously 18 was detained in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at the 19 Florence Correctional Center. Petitioner did not pay the $5.00 filing fee or file an 20 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a September 29, 2025 Order, the Court noted 21 that Petitioner appeared to have been released from ICE custody but gave him 30 days to 22 pay the filing fee or file an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc. 3 at 1.) The 23 Court dismissed the Petition because it was not filed on a court-approved form for a petition 24 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and gave Petitioner 30 days to file an amended petition using 25 the court-approved form included with the Order. (Id. at 2.) Finally, the Court noted that 26 although a person may apply for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of another person, “‘next 27 friend’ standing is by no means granted automatically to whomever seeks to pursue an 28 1 action on behalf of another.” (Id. at 1 n.1) (quoting Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 2 163 (1990)). 3 On October 27, 2025, Petitioner, through Ms. Woods, filed an Application to 4 Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 4). The Court will deny the Application to Proceed In 5 Forma Pauperis and will give Petitioner 30 days to pay the filing fee or file a complete 6 Application to Proceed. In addition, although Petitioner has not requested an extension of 7 time, the Court, in its discretion, will grant Petitioner 30 days to file an amended § 2241 8 petition in compliance with the September 29, 2025 Order. 9 I. Next Friend Status 10 “In order to establish next-friend standing, the putative next friend must show: (1) 11 that the petitioner is unable to litigate his own cause due to mental incapacity, lack of access 12 to court, or other similar disability; and (2) the next friend has some significant relationship 13 with, and is truly dedicated to the best interests of, the petitioner.” Coalition of Clergy v. 14 Bush, 310 F.3d 1153, 1159–60 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Massie ex rel. Kroll v. Woodford, 15 244 F.3d 1192, 1194 (9th Cir. 2001)). “[R]equiring a showing of incompetency and a 16 ‘significant relationship’ ensures that ‘the litigant asserting only a generalized interest in 17 constitutional governance’ does not ‘circumvent the jurisdictional limits of Article III 18 simply by assuming the mantle of next friend.’” Id. (quoting Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 164). 19 Ms. Woods has neither properly sought nor shown she is entitled to next friend 20 standing. Ms. Woods therefore may not file any additional documents as Petitioner’s “next 21 friend.” Any additional documents in this case must be signed and filed by Petitioner. 22 II. Deficient Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 23 Rule 3.5(c) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure requires that “[i]f a habeas corpus 24 petitioner desires to prosecute the petition in forma pauperis, the petitioner shall file an 25 application to proceed in forma pauperis on a form approved by the Court, accompanied 26 by a certification of the warden or other appropriate officer of the institution in which the 27 petitioner is confined as to the amount of money or securities on deposit to the petitioner’s 28 credit.” Rule 3.5(c) also requires payment of the $5.00 filing fee if a petitioner has in 1 excess of $25.00 in his inmate account. 2 Although Petitioner has used the court-approved form, the “Certificate of 3 Correctional Official as to Status of Applicant’s Trust Account” section has not been 4 completed. In light of this deficiency, the Court will deny the Application to Proceed In 5 Forma Pauperis and will give Petitioner 30 days to either pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit 6 a complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 7 III. Warnings 8 A. Address Changes 9 Petitioner must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with 10 Rule 83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner must not include a motion 11 for other relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal 12 of this action. 13 B. Possible Dismissal 14 If Petitioner fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including 15 these warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik v. 16 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an action 17 for failure to comply with any order of the Court). 18 IT IS ORDERED: 19 (1) Aria Janai Woods’s next friend standing is denied. Ms. Woods may not file 20 any additional documents as Petitioner’s “next friend.” Any additional documents in this 21 action must be signed and filed by Petitioner. 22 (2) Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 4) is denied 23 without prejudice. 24 (3) Within 30 days of the date this Order is filed, Petitioner must either pay the 25 $5.00 filing fee or file a complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 26 (4) If Petitioner fails to either pay the $5.00 filing fee or file a complete 27 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis within 30 days, the Clerk of Court must enter a 28 judgment of dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice to Petitioner and deny any pending unrelated motions as moot. 3 (5) Petitioner has 30 days from the date of filing of this Order to file an amended 4) § 224] petition in compliance with the September 29, 2025 Order. 5 (6) If Petitioner fails to file an amended petition within 30 days, the Clerk of Court must enter a judgment of dismissal of this action, without prejudice and without 7 | further notice to Petitioner and deny any pending unrelated motions as moot. 8 (7) The Clerk of Court must mail Petitioner a court-approved form for filing a 9| “Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 For A Writ Of Habeas Corpus By A Person In Federal 10 | Custody” and the current court-approved form for filing an Application to Proceed In 11 | Forma Pauperis (Habeas). 12 Dated this 5th day of November, 2025. 13

15 16 _ James A. Teil Org Senior United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _4-

Instructions for Filing a Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona

1. Who May Use This Form. If you are detained in Arizona, you may use this form to challenge your detention by federal immigration authorities or to challenge the execution of your federal sentence by the United States Bureau of Prisons. You are asking for release or earlier release on the grounds that your detention or future detention violates the United States Constitution or other federal law. You should not use this form to challenge a state or federal judgment of conviction or sentence.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Whitmore Ex Rel. Simmons v. Arkansas
495 U.S. 149 (Supreme Court, 1990)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Wbright, Hardin & Hay v. Woolfolk
77 Ky. 308 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1878)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Marlon Garth Anthony Parris v. Merrick Garland, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marlon-garth-anthony-parris-v-merrick-garland-et-al-azd-2025.