Porter v. Breckon, No. 3:2020cv00527 - Document 7 (E.D. Va. 2020)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge David J. Novak on 09/04/2020. Copy mailed to counsel.(tjohn)

Download PDF
Porter v. Breckon Doc. 7 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, Dockets.Justia.com 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.