the court showing why the detained person does not sign and verify the complaint and who “the next friend” is. It was not intended that the writ of habeas corpus should be availed of, as matter of course, by intruders or uninvited meddlers, styling themselves next friends. United States ex rel. Bryant v. Houston, 273 F. 915, 916 (2d Cir.1921); see also Rosenberg v. United States, 346 U.S. 273, 291-92, 73 S.Ct. 1152, 97 L.Ed. 1607 (1953) (denying stranger the right to bring petition on behalf of the Rosenbergs, because there was no authorization); United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11, 13 n. 3, 76 S.Ct. 1, 100 L.Ed. 8 (1955) (granting next-friend standing to sister on behalf of prisoner in Korea); Gilmore v. Utah, 429 U.S. 1012, 1013-14, 97 S.Ct. 436, 50 L.Ed.2d 632 (1976) (<HOLDING>); Evans v. Bennett, 440 U.S. 1301, 99 S.Ct.
holding that claim belongs to child but allowing mother to assert it on childs behalf holding that the minor was otherwise represented because the childs legal guardian his mother brought the action on his behalf recognizing that prisoners 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 recognizing for purposes of stay nextfriend standing of mother on behalf of prisoner recognizing distinction between corporate officer acting on behalf of himself and corporate officer acting on behalf of his corporation