Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CECILIA ALEJANDRA JACO Case No.: 3:26-cv-2093-CAB-VET CASTILLO, 12 ORDER: Petitioner, 13 (1) DISMISSING PETITION FOR A v. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITH 14 LEAVE TO AMEND; and OTAY MESA DETENTION CENTER, 15 Respondent. (2) DENYING AS MOOT MOTIONS 16 TO EXPEDITE, FOR IMMEDIATE 17 RELEASE, FOR STAY OF REMOVAL, AND FOR TEMPORARY 18 RESTRAINING ORDER [Doc. Nos. 2– 19 5]. 20 Before the Court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Mirna Castillo on 21 behalf of her sister Cecilia Alejandra Jaco Castillo (“Petitioner”), [Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”)], 22 along with several motions intended to expedite the Court’s consideration of her petition, 23 [Doc. Nos. 2–5]. The Petition claims that Petitioner is detained by Immigration and 24 Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) in violation of the Fifth Amendment. [Petition at 12–15.] 25 For the following reasons, the Court DISMISSES the Petition with LEAVE TO AMEND. 26 A habeas petition “shall be in writing signed and verified by the person for whose 27 relief it is intended or by someone acting in his behalf.” 28 U.S.C. § 2242; see Coal. of 28 Clergy, Laws., & Professors v. Bush, 310 F.3d 1153, 1158 (9th Cir. 2002) (evaluating next- 1 friend standing in context of habeas petitions). “In order to establish next-friend standing, 2 the putative next friend must show: (1) that the petitioner is unable to litigate his own cause 3 due to mental incapacity, lack of access to court, or other similar disability; and (2) the next 4 friend has some significant relationship with, and is truly dedicated to the best interests of, 5 the petitioner.” Massie ex rel. Kroll v. Woodford, 244 F.3d 1192, 1194 (9th Cir. 2001). 6 Here, the Court does not find the first prong satisfied. The Petition generally states 7 that Petitioner fears retaliation if she personally pursues her case but does not provide any 8 specific examples, such as of the alleged “actual threats and prior transfer history.” 9 [Petition at 14.] The Court is familiar with the difficulties inherent in pro se proceedings 10 involving detained individuals. However, this judicial district has received numerous pro 11 se filings from immigration detainees over the past six months. Without specific 12 allegations regarding Petitioner’s individual inability to file, the Court does not find that 13 the first prong of the next-friend inquiry is met. 14 Additionally, “[w]hile a non-attorney may appear pro se on his own behalf, ‘[h]e has 15 no authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself.’” Johns v. Cnty. of San Diego, 16 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 17 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987)); see also Leon v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 26-CV- 18 00200-BAS-MMP, 2026 WL 112049, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2026). Even if the Court 19 were to grant next-friend status to Petitioner’s sister, she may not represent Petitioner 20 without an attorney. Alternatively, Petitioner may file her own petition and appear pro se. 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 The Court therefore DISMISSES the Petition with LEAVE TO AMEND by May 2 ||4, 2026. The Court also DENIES AS MOOT the pending motions. [Doc. Nos. 2—5.] 3 || Finally, the Clerk of the Court shall close the case. If an Amended Petition is filed that 4 corrects the deficiencies identified above, the Court will reopen the case. 5 It is SO ORDERED.

7 || Dated: April 7, 2026 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28