Jeremy Vaughn Pinson v. BARBARA VON BLANCKENSEE, Warden

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEREMY VAUGHN PINSON, et al.,
Petitioners-Appellants,
v.
BARBARA VON BLANCKENSEE,
Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 20-16422
D.C. No. 4:20-cv-00237-RM-JR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Rosemary Márquez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 20, 2021**
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Several inmates confined at the United States Penitentiary in Tucson,
Arizona appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 habeas corpus petition, and the district court’s order denying their motion
for reconsideration of the dismissal order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JAN 28 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-16422
§ 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, 136 S. Ct. 1885, 1891 (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

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-16422
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 Malone’s “Motion for Preliminary Injunction Pursuant to
Federal Civil Procedure 65(a)” is DENIED.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --