DAVIS v. WILLIAMS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
ZYKERIA DAVIS, 	:
:
Petitioner, 	:
v. 	: 	Case No. 5:25-cv-538-TES-CHW
:
JESSIE WILLIAMS, 	:
:
Respondent. 	:
________________________________ 	:
ORDER
Presently pending before the Court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking
relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on behalf of Petitioner Zykeria Davis, an inmate in the
Pulaski State Prison in Hawkinsville, Georgia (ECF No. 1). 	The Petition, however, was
prepared and signed by another inmate at the prison, Ms. Kyrima Anderson. ECF No. 1 at
15. Ms. Anderson indicates she is a “friend of the Court” and appears to have signed the
Petition in that capacity. Id.
28 U.S.C. § 1654 generally requires parties in federal courts to “plead and conduct
their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are
permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.” See also M.D. Ga. R. 83.1.1 (governing
attorney admissions). 	Thus, only Petitioner Davis or a licensed attorney admitted to
practice before this Court would typically be allowed to prosecute this action. In habeas
corpus cases, however, “courts have long permitted a next friend to proceed on behalf of a
prisoner who is unable to seek relief [herself].” Lonchar v. Zant, 978 F.2d 637, 641 (11th
Cir. 1992). 	Indeed, “Congress explicitly codified this next friend standing in 1948 by
Case 5:25-cv-00538-TES-CHW Document 3 Filed 01/29/26 Page 1 of 3

2
allowing for application for a writ of habeas corpus ‘by the person for whose relief it is
intended or by someone acting in his behalf.’” Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2242). To establish
standing to bring a habeas petition as a next friend, however, “[t]he would-be next friend
must first prove that the real party in interest cannot pursue [her] own cause due to some
disability such as mental incompetence or lack of access to court.” Id. (citing Whitmore v.
Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163-65 (1990)). 	In addition, “the next friend must show some
relationship or other evidence that would suggest that the next friend is truly dedicated to
the interests of the real party in interest.” Id. Absent “an adequate reason or explanation
of the necessity for resort to the ‘next friend’ device, the court is without jurisdiction to
consider the petition.” Weber v. Garza, 570 F.2d 511, 514 (5th Cir. 1978).1
Ms. Anderson bears the burden of establishing that she has standing to proceed on
behalf of Petitioner Davis and to raise Petitioner Davis’s claims before this Court.
Lonchar, 978 F.2d at 640. 	She must therefore “establish[] some reason or explanation,
satisfactory to the court, showing: (1) why the detained person did not sign and verify the
petition and (2) the relationship and interest of the would be ‘next-friend.’” 	Weber, 570
F.2d at 513-14. She has failed to do so in this case. Although Ms. Anderson suggests she
and Petitioner Davis were separated to prevent them from communicating, ECF No. 1 at
15, Ms. Anderson does not explain why Petitioner Davis cannot simply file this case on
1 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the
Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit
handed down prior to close of business on September 30, 1981.
Case 5:25-cv-00538-TES-CHW Document 3 Filed 01/29/26 Page 2 of 3

3
her own, nor does she describe any relationship or other evidence suggesting she is truly
dedicated to Petitioner Davis’s best interests.
If Petitioner Davis wishes to proceed with this action on her own behalf, she is
therefore ORDERED to recast her Petition on one of the Court’s standard forms for
seeking habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 	Petitioner Davis must also
either pay the $5.00 filing fee or file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in
this action. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail Petitioner Davis a copy of the appropriate
forms, marked with the case number for the above-captioned action, that Petitioner Davis
should use if she wishes to continue with this case. 	The Clerk may also mail a courtesy
copy of this Order, without the attached forms, to Ms. Anderson at the Pulaski State Prison.
Petitioner Davis shall have FOURTEEN (14) DAYS from the date shown on this
Order to (1) pay the required $5.00 filing fee or file a proper and complete motion to
proceed without the prepayment of the filing fee and (2) recast her Petition on the Court’s
standard form. 	Failure to fully and timely comply with this Order may result in the
dismissal of the pending application for habeas relief. 	There will be no service of
process in this case until further order.
SO ORDERED, this 29th day of January, 2026.
s/ Charles H. Weigle
Charles H. Weigle
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 5:25-cv-00538-TES-CHW Document 3 Filed 01/29/26 Page 3 of 3