Yuvisdel Riveron Vega, by next friend Yamile Sans Lores v. Markwayne Mullin, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Benjamin J. Cheeks (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a putative next friend on behalf of an immigration detainee. The court dismissed the petition without prejudice because the next friend was not represented by counsel and the petitioner did not sign the petition.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the petition for writ of habeas corpus without prejudice“Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the requirement that a next friend in federal habeas proceedings must be represented by counsel. The order cites specific district court authority (Caputo and Hinojosa) establishing that pro se next friends lack standing to represent others. The dismissal without prejudice, coupled with a deadline to file an amended petition signed by the petitioner or an attorney, is a procedurally appropriate remedy for a defect in standing/representation that can be cured. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the legal requirements for next-friend standing and applies the specific rule that next friends in habeas cases must be represented by counsel. It cites appropriate Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent for the general standing requirements and persuasive district court authority for the specific attorney representation requirement. The reasoning is direct and the remedy (dismissal without prejudice with a deadline to cure) is standard.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 YUVISDEL RIVERON VEGA, by next Case No.: 26-cv-4589-BJC-DEB friend YAMILE SANS LORES, 12 ORDER DISMISSING PETITION Petitioner, FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 13 PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §2241 v. 14 WITHOUT PREJUDICE [ECF NO. 1] MARKWAYNE MULLIN, et al, 15 Respondents. 16 18 On August 12, 2026, Petitioner Yuvisdel Riveron Vega, through his friend Yamile 19 Sans Lores, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF 20 No. 1. For the following reasons, the Petition is dismissed without prejudice. 21 An “[a]pplication for a writ of habeas corpus shall be in writing signed and verified 22 by the person for whose relief it is intended or by someone acting in his behalf.” 28 U.S.C. 23 § 2242 (emphasis added). However, “‘next friend’ standing is by no means granted 24 automatically to whomever seeks to pursue an action on behalf of another.” Whitmore v. 25 Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163 (1990). “In order to establish next-friend standing, the 26 putative next friend must show: (1) that the petitioner is unable to litigate [her] own cause 27 due to mental incapacity, lack of access to court, or other similar disability; and (2) the next 28 1 friend has some significant relationship with, and is truly dedicated to the best interests of, 2 the petitioner.” Coalition of Clergy, Laws., & Professors v. Bush, 310 F.3d 1153, 1159–60 3 (9th Cir. 2002). Because it contravenes the normal concepts of Article III standing, the 4 “burden is on the ‘next friend’ clearly to establish the propriety of his status and thereby 5 justify the jurisdiction of the court.” Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 164. 6 In support of her request to act as Petitioner’s “next friend,” Lores contends that 7 “Petitioner has limited access to legal resources, legal materials, communication, and the 8 ability to adequately prepare, file, and litigate this Petition without assistance” due to his 9 confinement. ECF No. 1 at ¶ 2. Lores further states that she “has maintained a close and 10 longstanding personal relationship with Petitioner and has remained in regular 11 communication with him throughout his detention.” Id. ¶ 3. She claims she is “[a]cting 12 solely in Petitioner's best interests, [and she] has voluntarily agreed to serve as Petitioner's 13 Next Friend for the limited purpose of seeking federal habeas corpus relief challenging the 14 legality of Petitioner's continued immigration detention.” Id. ¶ 4. 15 Here, Lores meets the first prong because she asserts that Petitioner does not have 16 access to this Court due to a lack of legal resources. See Florez Perez by next friend Tello 17 v. Bondi, 25-cv-3820-AGS-MSB, 2026 WL 59785 *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2026). In addition, 18 Lores satisfies the second prong because she contends she has a “longstanding personal 19 relationship” with Petitioner and is acting “solely in his best interests.” ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 3-4. 20 However, a “next friend” must proceed with attorney representation. United States 21 v. Caputo, 2023 WL 5207318, at *5 (E.D. Cal. 2023)(federal habeas statute “does not 22 authorize the ‘next friend’ to proceed without an attorney”; See also Hinojosa v. Warden, 23 SATF/SP, No. 2:22-cv-1780 DB P, 2023 WL 2874169, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2023) 24 (requiring next friend to “be represented by counsel in order to proceed as a ‘next friend’ 25 because pro se litigants have no authority to represent anyone other than themselves”), 26 report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:22-cv-01780-KJM DB P, 2023 WL 4711303 27 (E.D. Cal. July 24, 2023). 28 Here, Petitioner has not signed the Petition, and Lores does not appear to be an | |} attorney. Therefore, she may not represent Petitioner as “next friend” pro se. Accordingly, 2 ||the Court DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice. To have the case reopened, 3 || Petitioner must file an Amended Petition signed by Petitioner or a licensed attorney no 4 || later than September 8, 2026. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: August 25, 2026 7 Degen Oh feo 9 10 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28