Mariah Lynn Whynot, Intellectually Challenged Individual; By and Through Next Friend Carrie Shurtleff v. Terri Lee St. Hilaire; Nicolas Stephen Robinson; Robert Charles Thompson Jr.; The Law Firm of Thompson & Fernald, P.A.; Joseph Michael Murphy; The Law Firm of Deloach, Hofstra & Cavonis, P.A.; and Taylor Hatch

Summary

A magistrate judge recommends dismissal of a pro se habeas corpus action filed by Carrie Shurtleff on behalf of Mariah Lynn Whynot. The recommendation concludes that neither individual is alleged to be in federal, state, or immigration custody and that Shurtleff lacks standing because she is not Whynot's legal representative or guardian.

Holdings

1. The petition failed to state a claim for habeas relief because neither Petitioner nor Whynot was alleged to be in federal, state, or immigration custody.
2. Shurtleff lacked standing to bring claims on Whynot's behalf because she admitted that she was not Whynot's legal representative or guardian.
3. The action warranted dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and the remaining motions should be denied as moot.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the habeas petition stated a claim for relief when neither the petitioner nor the person on whose behalf the petition was filed was alleged to be in custody.
2. Whether Carrie Shurtleff had standing to bring habeas claims on behalf of Mariah Lynn Whynot when Shurtleff admitted she was not Whynot's legal representative or guardian.
3. Whether the action should be dismissed during in forma pauperis screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Disposition

other