With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". at 163-64, 110 S.Ct. 1717. These requirements are met here. The court recognizes that Fleenor has recently stated on numerous occasions that he does not want these attorneys to act as his attorneys or to represent him in any manner. Fleenor’s current desire regarding legal representation, however, does not refute the fact that the petitioner-attorneys have all had a substantial relationship with him. Petitioner F. Thomas Schornhorst has served as Fleenor’s attorney and represented his interests off and on for over ten years. 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. See In re Cockrum, 867 F.Supp. 494, 495 (E.D.Texas 1994) (<HOLDING>); but cf. Davis v. Austin, 492 F.Supp. 273, 275

A: recognizing nextfriend standing of mother on behalf of prisoner
B: 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
C: recognizing for purposes of stay nextfriend standing of mother on behalf of prisoner
D: holding time begins when the prisoner knows  the important facts not when the prisoner recognizes their legal significance
B.