Amador v. The State of Florida
1:19-cv-21963
S.D. Fla.May 28, 2019Background
- Petitioner Randy Amador is confined at Highlands County Jail and allegedly arrested for probation violation on March 31, 2019.
- Craig Manahan, a non‑lawyer, filed a pro se habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on Amador’s behalf, asserting denial of counsel, lack of notice of charges, and ignored motions in state court.
- State court found probable cause on April 1, 2019; Manahan filed the federal petition on May 15, 2019.
- The magistrate judge considered whether a non‑attorney may proceed as a "next friend" or otherwise represent Amador in federal habeas proceedings.
- The court concluded Manahan cannot act as counsel because he is not a licensed attorney, and therefore lacks standing to litigate Amador’s habeas petition.
- The magistrate recommended dismissal without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and noted that Younger abstention would independently counsel dismissal while denying a certificate of appealability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing as a "next friend" to bring habeas on Amador's behalf | Manahan contends Amador cannot pursue the case and Manahan is acting to vindicate Amador's rights | State asserts a non‑lawyer cannot represent another in federal court and Manahan has not established requisite next‑friend factors | Dismissal: Manahan lacks standing and cannot proceed as next friend; pleadings by him are nullities |
| Unauthorized practice of law — non‑attorney representation | Manahan acted as Amador's representative and filed motions/petition on her behalf | State asserts only licensed attorneys (or the party herself) may litigate; non‑attorneys cannot serve as counsel | Held that non‑attorneys may not act as legal counsel; Manahan cannot proceed as Amador's attorney |
| Jurisdiction and appropriate disposition | Amador's claims implicate constitutional confinement claims subject to habeas review | State argues lack of jurisdiction because petition was filed by non‑attorney on behalf of detained person | Court recommends dismissal without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction; Amador may reassert claims herself or via licensed counsel |
| Certificate of Appealability (COA) | Implied request to appeal | State argues procedural dismissal forecloses COA | Court recommends denying COA because dismissal is on procedural grounds; any objection may be raised to the district judge |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (establishes requirements for "next friend" standing)
- Weber v. Garza, 570 F.2d 511 (5th Cir.) (non‑lawyers may not use next‑friend device to practice law)
- Lonchar v. Zant, 978 F.2d 637 (11th Cir.) (next‑friend standing applied in habeas context)
- Devine v. Indian River Cnty. Sch. Bd., 121 F.3d 576 (11th Cir.) (non‑attorney cannot act as legal counsel for another)
- Fuqua v. Massey, [citation="615 F. App'x 611"] (11th Cir.) (similar holding that a non‑attorney parent could not represent child)
- Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (federal courts should abstain for ongoing state criminal proceedings)