Baltimore v. Biben
- Louis Stanton
- 1:25-cv-04701
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Baltimore v. Biben, Judge Stanton dismissed Baltimore’s claims and denied her release petition because she could not represent her son.
Tracey Baltimore’s claims and request for Lamar Davenport’s release were dismissed or denied because she was not an attorney and did not establish that she could act for him. The decision did not resolve whether Davenport’s conviction was lawful.
What happened
In Baltimore v. Biben, Tracey Baltimore, who was representing herself, sued a New York State Supreme Court judge and the New York County District Attorney on behalf of her incarcerated adult son, Lamar Davenport. She alleged errors at his trial and sought his release, other court orders, and money damages.
The court ruled that Baltimore could not bring her son’s civil-rights claims because she was not an attorney. It also ruled that she could not seek release for him as a representative because she did not explain why he could not bring his own petition or show that she had authority to act for him.
The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, denied the release petition without prejudice, and declined to allow an amended complaint because amendment would be futile. Judge Louis L. Stanton also stated that no certificate of appealability would issue and directed the Clerk to enter judgment.
The detailed version
- Baltimore v. Biben · No. 1:25-cv-04701
- Louis Stanton
- July 15, 2025
Background
Tracey Baltimore, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on behalf of her adult son, Lamar Davenport. The defendants were New York State Supreme Court Judge Ellen Biben and New York County District Attorney Alvin Bragg. Baltimore alleged that numerous errors occurred during Davenport’s trial, which led to what she characterized as an unlawful conviction for first-degree manslaughter. The complaint sought declaratory relief, an order requiring Davenport’s immediate release, and money damages. Baltimore also filed several motions, including an emergency release motion and motions concerning damages, electronic records, cell-phone property, and an exhibit.
The court had allowed Baltimore to proceed without paying filing fees. It therefore screened the complaint under the statute governing complaints filed without prepayment of fees. That statute requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that it must dismiss claims over which it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court lacks legal authority to decide them.
Civil-rights claims brought for Davenport
The court held that Baltimore could not pursue Davenport’s civil-rights claims for damages. Federal law generally allows a person to represent only himself or herself unless the person is a licensed attorney. Baltimore was proceeding without a lawyer and did not allege that she was licensed to practice law. The court therefore dismissed any claims she asserted on Davenport’s behalf without prejudice to an action that she, or an attorney, could file to represent her own interests.
Request for release
The court treated the request for Davenport’s release as a request for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal statute governing certain challenges to state-court convictions and custody. A person other than the prisoner may sometimes proceed as a representative, commonly called a “next friend,” but that representative must explain why the prisoner cannot litigate personally and must show dedication to the prisoner’s interests and a significant relationship with the prisoner.
The court assumed that Baltimore, as Davenport’s mother, had a significant relationship with him and was dedicated to his best interests. But it found that she had not explained why she needed to act for him. She did not allege facts showing that Davenport was disabled, incompetent, or otherwise unable to pursue his own case. The court therefore concluded that she lacked standing, meaning the legal authority required to bring the petition for him, and denied the petition without prejudice to Davenport asserting his own rights in a § 2254 petition.
Leave to amend and disposition
The court declined to give Baltimore permission to amend the complaint because it found that the defects could not be cured by amendment. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). It also stated that, because the petition made no substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied, a certificate of appealability would not issue. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment dismissing the case. Judge Louis L. Stanton signed the order on July 14, 2025.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.