AMODEO

v.

WARDEN, FCC COLEMAN - LOW

I. Status

Frank L. Amodeo, a federal inmate, is the named Petitioner in this action. However, he is not the individual who signed and filed the Petition. Rather, a fellow inmate, Donovan Davis, Jr. initiated this case as Amodeo’s “next friend” by signing and filing a Petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1; Petition).¹ In the Petition, Mr. Davis challenges Amodeo’s 2009 conviction, asserting four grounds: Amodeo’s incompetence; ineffective assistance of counsel; prosecutorial and defense counsel misconduct; and prejudice or bias of the trial judge. See Petition at 1, 6-8.2

Mr. Davis cites 28 U.S.C. § 2242 as extending authority for him to proceed as Amodeo’s next friend. Reply at 2. Mr. Davis says Amodeo has been declared or recognized incompetent by multiple courts and is prohibited from filing on his own behalf. Id. at 4- 5. Mr. Davis explains Amodeo does not understand why he is in prison and believes “God has placed him in prison in order to strip him of all his worldly possessions.” Petition at 10. Mr. Davis acknowledges he is not a lawyer but has been incarcerated with Amodeo for three years (as of August 2018) and is familiar with Amodeo’s mental illness and litigation history. Id. at 10; Reply at 6. He asks that the Court appoint an attorney for Amodeo to protect Amodeo’s “health and liberty interests,” stating Amodeo petition as untimely, rejecting Amodeo’s claim of actual innocence, and declining to extend equitable tolling because Amodeo did not demonstrate his mental illness caused him to file the petition late); 6:16-cv-565-Orl-28GJK (dismissed without prejudice as second or successive); 6:16-cv-591-Orl-28GJK (dismissed without prejudice as second or successive). has a variety of medical problems for which the prison is not providing proper treatment. Reply at 5-6. Section 2242 provides, “[a]pplication for a writ of habeas corpus shall be in writing signed and verified by the person for whose relief it is intended or by someone acting in his behalf.” 28 U.S.C. § 2242. The latter part of this statutory provision codifies the common law tradition of permitting a “next friend” to litigate on behalf of a prisoner who, because of incompetence, is unable to initiate a habeas action himself. See Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 162 (1990). See also Ford v. Haley, 195 F. 3d 603, 624 (11th Cir. 1999) (“In habeas corpus cases, courts have long permitted a next friend to proceed on behalf of a prisoner who is unable to seek relief himself.”). The Supreme Court has cautioned, however, that “‘[n]ext friend’ standing is by no means granted automatically to whomever seeks to pursue an action on behalf of another.” Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 163. While a person seeking next friend status need not be a lawyer, he carries the burden to establish the propriety of the status. Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 164. First, the would-be next friend must provide an adequate explanation for the necessity of the designation, such as the real party’s mental incompetence or lack of access to the courts. Id. at 163. This prerequisite is not satisfied if the real party’s “access to the court is otherwise unimpeded.” Id. at 165. Second, the individual must “be truly dedicated to the best interests of the person on whose behalf he seeks to litigate.” Id. A would-be next friend may demonstrate he is dedicated to the real party’s interests, for example, by showing there is some “significant relationship” between the two. Id. at 164. See also Weber v. Garza, 570 F. 2d 511, 513-14 (5th Cir. 1978) (ruling the person seeking to use the “next friend” device must demonstrate why the real party is not able to proceed on his own behalf and establish the requisite relationship).³ The Court finds Mr. Davis fails to carry his burden to proceed on behalf of Amodeo under § 2242’s “next friend” provision. As to the first Whitmore element, the Court takes judicial notice that a Florida state court appointed Mr. Charles T. Rahn to serve as a limited guardian for Amodeo. See Order (Doc. 6), Case No. 6:16- cv-565-Orl-28GJK (recognizing Mr. Rahn is a court-appointed guardian for Amodeo and referencing the appointment order, dated June 9, 2015, which permits Mr. Rahn to initiate, defend, or settle lawsuits on Amodeo’s behalf).⁴ Mr. Rahn is presently assisting

Plaintiff in pending matters, including one related to his 2009

10.

Given Amodeo has a court-appointed guardian who continues to act on his behalf and Amodeo’s ability to initiate cases and understand legal proceedings, Mr. Davis fails to demonstrate the necessity of the “next friend” device under § 2242. More specifically, despite Amodeo’s mental illness, his “access to the court is otherwise unimpeded.” Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 165. See also

While Mr. Davis expresses compassion for and familiarity with Amodeo’s mental illness, compassion is not the standard for demonstrating the propriety of next friend status under § 2242. See Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 166 (noting that laudable sentiment and sympathy for a friend’s plight does not establish the required “significant relationship” for next friend standing). Mr. Davis demonstrates no “significant relationship” with Amodeo; the only relationship asserted is one of happenstance—they are both inmates at the same correctional institution and both have experience with the same district court judge. See Tyler v. Armontrout, 696 F. Supp. 1275, 1278 (E.D. Mo. 1988) (finding the status of “fellow inmates,” without more, was an insufficient basis upon which to confer next friend standing) (citing Weber, 570 F. 2d at 511).

For these reasons, Mr. Davis lacks standing under Article III, and the Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits of the Petition. See Francis, 246 F. App’x at 623 (holding the district court was stripped of its jurisdiction over a habeas petition where the court denied the filing party next friend status). Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. The Petition (Doc. 1) is STRICKEN, and the case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

2. The Court directs the Clerk to enter judgment dismissing the case without prejudice, terminate pending motions, and close the file. 3. In light of the Court’s finding that Amodeo’s access to the court is unimpeded in part because he has a court-appointed guardian, the Court directs the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to Amodeo’s guardian, Mr. Charles T. Rahn. DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 29th day of August, 2019. 4 De af J. DAVIS United States District Judge

Jax-6 Ci Frank L. Amodeo, #48883-019 Donovan Davis, Jr., #60439-018 Counsel of Record Charles T. Rahn 4589 Southfield Avenue Orlando, FL 32812