context: Petitioners Alan Freeman and Carol Heise have served as Fleenor's attorneys since 1994. The petitioner-attorneys are familiar with both the facts and the procedural history regarding Fleenor's legal actions.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 867 F.Supp. 494, 495
citation_a.parenthetical: recognizing that prisoner's former attorney had a significant relationship with the prisoner for purposes of next friend standing because attorney had acted on behalf of the prisoner in prior legal proceedings
citation_a.sentence: See In re Cockrum, 867 F.Supp. 494, 495 (E.D.Texas 1994) (recognizing that prisoner’s former attorney had a significant relationship with the prisoner for purposes of next friend standing because attorney had acted on behalf of the prisoner in prior legal proceedings); but cf. Davis v. Austin, 492 F.Supp. 273, 275 (N.D.Ga.1980) (finding that neither ordained minister nor cousin of prisoner had standing to bring an action as next friend of the prisoner because of their lack of contact with the prisoner).
citation_b.signal: but cf.
citation_b.identifier: 492 F.Supp. 273, 275
citation_b.parenthetical: finding that neither ordained minister nor cousin of prisoner had standing to bring an action as next friend of the prisoner because of their lack of contact with the prisoner
citation_b.sentence: See In re Cockrum, 867 F.Supp. 494, 495 (E.D.Texas 1994) (recognizing that prisoner’s former attorney had a significant relationship with the prisoner for purposes of next friend standing because attorney had acted on behalf of the prisoner in prior legal proceedings); but cf. Davis v. Austin, 492 F.Supp. 273, 275 (N.D.Ga.1980) (finding that neither ordained minister nor cousin of prisoner had standing to bring an action as next friend of the prisoner because of their lack of contact with the prisoner).