PINSON v. BLANCKENSEE (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-01-28No. No. 20-16422

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the habeas petition.

A group of inmates at a federal penitentiary in Arizona filed a joint habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging COVID-19-related confinement conditions. One inmate, Forrest, who is not a lawyer, sought to sign and represent the others on the petition. The district court dismissed the case, and the inmates appealed arguing that § 2242 permitted Forrest to act as their representative and that all petitioners should be joined in a single action.

The appellate court upheld the dismissal on multiple grounds. Forrest lacked authority to represent others in court as a non-attorney and did not satisfy the legal requirements for next-friend standing under § 2242. The court also found that joining multiple petitioners in a single § 2241 habeas petition would create administrative and procedural problems that justified denying joinder. Additionally, the court determined the district court properly declined to appoint counsel because the inmates failed to show the exceptional circumstances necessary to warrant such appointment.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a non-attorney inmate may represent other inmates in a federal habeas petition
Whether next-friend standing requirements were satisfied under 28 U.S.C. § 2242
Whether multiple petitioners may be joined in a single § 2241 habeas petition
Whether the district court properly denied appointment of counsel

Procedural posture

Inmates appealed pro se from a district court judgment dismissing their § 2241 habeas petition and denying their motion for reconsideration.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Several inmates confined at the United States Penitentiary in Tucson, Arizona appeal pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing their 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition, and the district courts order denying their motion for reconsideration of the dismissal order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, see Marrero v. Ives, 682 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm.

Appellants sought to pursue in the district court a joint § 2241 petition challenging the conditions of confinement related to COVID-19. They contend that the district court erred by dismissing their petition because 28 U.S.C. § 2242 authorized appellant Ryan Forrest to sign the petition on behalf of the other petitioners, and the district court should have permitted joinder of all the petitioners. The district court properly dismissed the action. Forrest, a non-attorney, cannot represent others in court, see Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997), and Forrest failed to meet the requirements for next-friend standing under § 2242. See Coal. of Clergy, Lawyers, & Professors v. Bush, 310 F.3d 1153, 1159-60 (9th Cir. 2002). Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that joint prosecution of a single § 2241 habeas petition by all petitioners would not be administratively feasible and militated against joinder. See Dietz v. Bouldin, ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S. Ct. 1885, 1891, 195 L.Ed.2d 161 (2016) (district courts have inherent powers “to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Desert Empire Bank v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 623 F.2d 1371, 1375 (9th Cir. 1980) (discussing standard of review and factors for permissive joinder).

Moreover, the district court did not err in declining to appoint counsel because the appellants did not demonstrate “exceptional circumstances” that would warrant the appointment of counsel. See Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). Contrary to appellants’ assertions, the district court did not “deny[ ] class certification” before “considering appointment of class counsel.”

Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration because appellants did not present any new evidence or legal arguments warranting relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993).

In light of this disposition, we need not reach appellants’ remaining contentions.

Appellant Jimmy Malones “Motion for Preliminary Injunction Pursuant to Federal Civil Procedure 65(a)” is DENIED.

AFFIRMED.