Walker v. United States
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-03332
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Walker v. United States, Judge Swain dismissed McLaren’s habeas petition for Walker because she could not represent him, without prejudice.
Glenroy Walker’s § 2241 request for immediate release was not reached on the merits because Judith McLaren could not represent him in federal court. The petition was dismissed without prejudice, although the conclusion also states that it was denied.
What happened
In Walker v. United States, Judith McLaren, representing herself, filed a petition seeking Glenroy Walker’s immediate release. Walker’s criminal case was pending in the same district, with sentencing scheduled for June 18, 2025.
The court explained that people generally may represent themselves or be represented by a licensed lawyer, but a non-lawyer may not bring claims in federal court for someone else. McLaren did not allege that she was a lawyer, so she could not file the petition on Walker’s behalf.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the petition without prejudice but declined to allow an amendment because the problem could not be fixed that way. The order also denied the petition, directed the Clerk to enter judgment dismissing the action, denied a certificate of appealability, and denied fee-waiver status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Walker v. United States · No. 1:25-cv-03332
- Laura Swain
- May 28, 2025
Background
Judith McLaren filed a self-represented petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking the immediate release of Glenroy Walker. The opinion identifies McLaren as Walker’s wife. Walker’s criminal matter was proceeding before Judge Cathy Seibel in the Southern District of New York, and his sentencing hearing was scheduled for June 18, 2025.
Walker had previously asked in his criminal case that McLaren be recognized as an “attorney in fact” who could file documents for him. Judge Seibel denied that request, explaining that a person may represent himself or may be represented by a lawyer admitted to practice in the court, but may not be represented by an “attorney in fact” or another person who is not admitted to practice law. The earlier order allowed McLaren to provide clerical or other assistance, but required Walker personally to sign submissions to the court.
Court’s analysis
The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1654, which permits representation by a licensed attorney or by a person representing himself. A person appearing without a lawyer may litigate only her own interests; she may not appear on behalf of another person in that person’s case. McLaren did not allege facts suggesting that she was an attorney. The court therefore concluded that she could not assert claims on Walker’s behalf.
The court determined that the defect could not be cured by amending the petition. Although courts generally give a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend defective pleadings, the court declined to grant leave to amend here because amendment would be futile.
Disposition
The court dismissed the petition without prejudice. In its conclusion, the court also stated that the petition was denied and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment dismissing the action. The dismissal was based on McLaren’s inability to represent Walker, rather than a decision on the legality of Walker’s detention or his request for release.
The court stated that no certificate of appealability would issue because the petition made no substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.