PINSON v. BLANCKENSEE (2021)

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

Summary · law.co

Holding. The district court's judgment dismissing the habeas corpus petition and its order denying the motion for reconsideration are affirmed.

Multiple inmates at a federal penitentiary in Arizona filed a joint habeas corpus petition challenging COVID-19-related confinement conditions. One inmate, Forrest, who was not an attorney, attempted to sign the petition on behalf of the other inmates and sought to have all petitioners joined in a single action. The district court dismissed the petition, finding that Forrest lacked authority to represent the other inmates and did not qualify as a next-friend under the applicable statute. The court also determined that joinder was not administratively feasible.

On appeal, the inmates argued the district court erred in dismissing their case and denying their motion for reconsideration. The appellate court upheld the dismissal, holding that non-attorneys cannot represent others in federal court and that Forrest failed to satisfy the legal requirements for next-friend standing. The court further found no abuse of discretion in the district court's refusal to permit joinder or appoint counsel, as the inmates did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting appointed representation. The motion for preliminary injunction was denied.

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

Key issues

Authority of non-attorney inmate to represent other inmates in federal court
Requirements for next-friend standing under federal habeas corpus statute
Permissibility of joinder in habeas corpus petitions
Appointment of counsel in exceptional circumstances

Procedural posture

Inmates appealed pro se from a district court order dismissing their joint § 2241 habeas corpus 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.