Pavel Ibarra Gamboa v. Merrick B. Garland, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — However, “‘next friend’ standing is by no 1 means granted automatical
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a habeas petition and motion to proceed in forma pauperis filed by a non-attorney 'next friend' on behalf of an immigration detainee. The court denied the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the case without prejudice because the next friend lacked standing to represent the petitioner pro se.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis denied“the Court DENIES the Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2)” | agree with court The court correctly applied the rule that a non-attorney cannot represent another person pro se. Because the 'next friend' was not an attorney, she lacked the authority to file the motion on behalf of the petitioner, rendering the motion procedurally defective. |
Case dismissed without prejudice“DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice” | agree with court Dismissal without prejudice is the appropriate remedy when a party lacks standing or authority to file the action, as it allows the real party in interest to refile the action properly signed by themselves or their attorney. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the legal barrier: a non-attorney cannot act as a 'next friend' in a pro se capacity. It cites binding Ninth Circuit precedent (Simon, Johns) and Supreme Court precedent (Whitmore) to support the denial. The application of Local Rule 83.11(a) further solidifies the procedural basis for the dismissal. The reasoning is direct and legally sound.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAVEL IBARRA GAMBOA, Case No.: 3:26-cv-0469-DMS-JLB A#216-984-056, 12 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO Petitioner, 13 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS v. AND DISMISSING CASE 14 WITHOUT PREJUDICE MERRICK B. GARLAND, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 Petitioner Pavel Ibarra Gamboa (“Petitioner”), an immigration detainee housed at 19 the Otay Mesa Detention Center, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant 20 to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, along with a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”), ECF Nos. 21 1, 2. Upon review, and for the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES the motion to 22 proceed in forma pauperis and DISMISSES the case without prejudice. 23 Both the Petition and the IFP Motion are signed by Petitioner’s “long-term partner,” 24 Osleidy Ofarrill Fuentes (“Fuentes”), as “next friend.” ECF No. 1-2 at 1; ECF No. 1 at 5; 25 ECF No. 2 at 1. “‘[N]ext friends’ appear in court on behalf of detained prisoners who are 26 unable, usually because of mental incompetence or inaccessibility, to seek relief 27 themselves.” Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 162 (1990) (citing United States ex rel. 28 Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11, 13, n.3 (1955)). However, “‘next friend’ standing is by no 1 means granted automatically to whomever seeks to pursue an action on behalf of another.” 2 Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 163. 3 In order to establish standing, the next friend must: (1) “provide an adequate 4 explanation—such as inaccessibility, mental incompetence, or other disability—why the 5 real party in interest cannot appear on his own behalf to prosecute the action”; and (2) “be 6 truly dedicated to the best interests of the person on whose behalf he seeks to litigate.” Id. 7 (internal citations omitted). “The burden is on the ‘next friend’ clearly to establish the 8 propriety of his status and thereby justify the jurisdiction of the court.” Id. at 164. 9 In addition, “[c]ourts have routinely adhered to the general rule prohibiting pro se 10 plaintiffs from pursuing claims on behalf of others in a representative capacity.” Simon v. 11 Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008) (collecting cases). See Johns v. 12 County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[A] non-lawyer ‘has no authority 13 to appear as an attorney for others than himself.”) (quoting C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. 14 United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987)). While the federal habeas statute does 15 not prevent a “next friend” from pursuing a habeas action on behalf of, “it does not 16 authorize the ‘next friend’ to proceed without an attorney.” United States v. Caputo, 2023 17 WL 5207318, at *5 (E.D. Cal. 2023); see also Hinojosa v. Warden, SATF/SP, 2023 WL 18 2874169, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 2023) (“[E]ven if Mr. Bland’s motion for ‘next friend’ status 19 were granted, he would have to be represented by counsel in order to proceed as a ‘next 20 friend’ because pro se litigants have no authority to represent anyone other than 21 themselves.”), report and recommendation adopted, 2023 WL 4711303 (E.D. Cal. 2023). 22 Furthermore, this Court’s Local Rules provide, in relevant part: 23 Any person who is appearing propria persona, (without an attorney) (i.e. pro se) must appear personally for such purpose and may not delegate that duty to 24 any other person, including husband or wife, or another party on the same side 25 appearing without an attorney.
27 S.D. Cal. CivLR 83.11(a). 28 l Here, because Fuentes does not appear to be an attorney, and she may not represent 2 || Petitioner as “next friend” pro se, the Court DENIES the Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 3 ||2) and DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice. To have the case reopened, Petitioner 4 || must, no later than March 16, 2026: (1) either pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit a request 5 || to proceed IFP signed by Petitioner and (2) file an Amended Petition signed by Petitioner 6 || or licensed attorney. For Petitioner’s convenience, the Clerk of Court shall attach to this 7 || Order a blank application to proceed in forma pauperis and a blank § 2241 habeas form 8 || petition. 9 || IT ISSO ORDERED. 10 Dated: January 28, 2026 M1 2 nnn Salo D Hon. Dana M. Sabraw United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28