Daniel Ribera Arauz, by next friend Angela Patricia Arauz v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Benjamin J. Cheeks (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a putative next friend on behalf of an incarcerated petitioner. The court dismissed the petition without prejudice because the next friend was not an attorney and the petitioner had not signed 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 a federal habeas case must be represented by counsel. The order recites that the petitioner did not sign the petition and the next friend is not an attorney, which satisfies the conditions for dismissal under the cited authority. The dismissal is without prejudice, allowing for re-filing with proper representation or signature. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the legal requirements for next-friend standing and the specific procedural requirement that such a representative must be an attorney in federal habeas proceedings. It applies these rules to the facts that the petitioner did not sign the petition and the next friend is not an attorney. The reasoning is direct and supported by the cited authorities.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL RIBERA ARAUZ, by next Case No.: 26-cv-4742-BJC-VET friend ANGELA PATRICIA ARAUZ 12 ORDER DISMISSING PETITION SUBIRANA, FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 13 Petitioner, PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §2241 14 WITHOUT PREJUDICE v. 15 WARDEN, Otay Mesa Detention Center, [ECF NO. 1] 16 et al, 17 Respondents. 18 19 20 On August 19, 2026, Petitioner Daniel Ribera Arauz, through his friend Angela 21 Patricia Arauz Subirana, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 22 2241. ECF No. 1. For the following reasons, the Petition is dismissed without prejudice. 23 An “[a]pplication for a writ of habeas corpus shall be in writing signed and verified 24 by the person for whose relief it is intended or by someone acting in his behalf.” 28 U.S.C. 25 § 2242 (emphasis added). However, “‘next friend’ standing is by no means granted 26 automatically to whomever seeks to pursue an action on behalf of another.” Whitmore v. 27 Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163 (1990). “In order to establish next-friend standing, the 28 putative next friend must show: (1) that the petitioner is unable to litigate his own cause 1 || due to mental incapacity, lack of access to court, or other similar disability; and (2) the next 2 || friend has some significant relationship with, and is truly dedicated to the best interests of, 3 || the petitioner.” Coalition of Clergy, Laws., & Professors v. Bush, 310 F.3d 1153, 1159-60 4 Cir. 2002) (citing Massie ex rel. Kroll v. Woodford, 244 F.3d 1192, 1194 (9th 5 || Cir.2001)). Because it contravenes the normal concepts of Article III standing, the “burden 6 on the ‘next friend’ clearly to establish the propriety of his status and thereby justify the 7 |\jurisdiction of the court.” Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 164. 8 In support of her request to act as Petitioner’s “next friend” Arauz Subirana contends 9 ||that Petitioner is “physically incarcerated, restrained, and unable to sign or file court 10 ||documents on his own behalf.” ECF No. 1 at 11. She further states that she is Petitioner’s 11 || wife, has a close relationship with him and acts in his best interest. /d. As such, she meets 12 || both prongs required to establish next-friend standing. 13 However, a “next friend” must proceed with attorney representation. United States 14 Caputo, 2023 WL 5207318, at *5 (E.D. Cal. 2023)(federal habeas statute □□□□□ not 15 || authorize the ‘next friend’ to proceed without an attorney. Here, Petitioner has not signed 16 || the petition, and Arauz Subirana does not appear to be an attorney. Therefore, she may not 17 ||represent Petitioner as “next friend” pro se. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the 18 || Petition without prejudice. To have the case reopened, Petitioner must file an Amended 19 || Petition signed by Petitioner or a licensed attorney no later than September 16, 2025. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 ||Dated: August 28, 2026 22 24 95 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks United States District Judge 26 27 28