Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
On September 16, 2026, Donatello Lozarati filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 as a "next friend" for Jimmy G. S., a federal immigration detainee. The petition alleged that Jimmy G. S. was wrongfully detained in violation of his due process rights. The findings and recommendations state that he was detained at the California City Immigration Processing Center. The filing was mailed from Syracuse, New York, and the court used a shortened form of the petitioner's name to protect sensitive personal information.
On September 21, 2026, the court addressed Lozarati's ability to file for another person. It explained that a next friend must establish standing, show that the action serves the detained person's best interests, and be represented by counsel. The court found no indication that Lozarati was authorized to prosecute the action even if he could qualify as a next friend. It therefore ordered Jimmy G. S. to notify the court by October 12, 2026, whether he would appear on his own behalf or secure licensed counsel to proceed, and warned that failure to respond could produce a recommendation of dismissal. No response or other communication followed.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommended dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 183(b), based on failure to prosecute and failure to obey a court order. Applying the Ninth Circuit's dismissal factors, the court weighed the first and second factors in favor of dismissal because the court cannot effectively manage its docket if a party ceases litigating the case. The third factor, risk of prejudice to respondents, also weighed in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. Although the policy favoring decisions on the merits ordinarily weighs against dismissal, the court concluded that it provided little support where the party responsible for advancing the case had stopped doing so.
The September 21 warning satisfied the requirement to consider alternatives because it expressly alerted the petitioner that noncompliance could lead to a dismissal recommendation. The court also reasoned that monetary sanctions would be of little use because the petitioner was proceeding in forma pauperis, while precluding evidence or witnesses would likely have no effect after litigation activity ceased. The recommendation was submitted to the assigned district judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); it was not itself a final dismissal or an immediately appealable order.
Key Takeaways
- The court recommended dismissal without prejudice, rather than deciding the alleged due-process violation or ordering the petitioner's release.
- The recommendation rested on the petitioner's failure to respond to the September 21 order and his failure to continue prosecuting the action.
- The earlier order had questioned the next friend's authority and directed the petitioner to notify the court by October 12 whether he would appear on his own behalf or secure licensed counsel.
- The court found that its express dismissal warning and the impracticality of lesser sanctions supported the recommended disposition.
- Parties had fourteen days after service to object, and the recommendation was not immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the procedural vulnerability of a habeas action initiated by someone claiming next-friend status when the detainee's authorization and representation are not established. The court did not resolve the underlying immigration-detention claim; it addressed whether the case could continue without participation by the petitioner or qualified counsel.
The recommendation also shows how an express warning can support dismissal for noncompliance while leaving the district judge to make the final decision. Any objections were limited to fifteen pages, with no new exhibits permitted, and the document warned that failing to object timely could waive appellate rights.