Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Pedro Rivera Verdugo's habeas action was filed pro se on his behalf through his next friend, Estefany Rivera Ruiz. The respondent was the Warden of the California City Immigration Processing Center. The petition appeared at ECF No. 1, and the court addressed it at the initial screening stage rather than after an answer or merits briefing.
The court explained that Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases applies to petitions under Section 2241 through Rule 1(b). Under that framework, the assigned judge must examine the petition and order a response unless it plainly appears that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. The order cited Bostic v. Carlson, Valdez v. Montgomery, and Boyd v. Thompson in describing that screening authority.
The court then addressed the special rules governing next-friend filings. Although 28 U.S.C. § 2242 permits someone acting on a petitioner's behalf to sign and verify an application, the court stated that a next friend must have standing and, when filing for a person in custody, may not appear without counsel.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that the petition had to be dismissed without prejudice as currently filed because it plainly appeared that relief could not be obtained through this pro se next-friend filing. It explained that individuals appearing pro se may represent themselves but not others. The order relied on Cheema v. Warden, which cited Johns v. County of San Diego and Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., and also cited Perez v. Bondi.
The order separately described the showing required for next-friend standing. Quoting Coalition of Clergy, Lawyers, and Professors v. Bush, the court said the putative next friend must show that the petitioner cannot litigate his own cause because of mental incapacity, lack of access to court, or a similar disability, and that the next friend has a significant relationship with and is truly dedicated to the petitioner's best interests. The dismissal rested on the representation defect as filed; the court did not adjudicate the underlying detention claim.
The court identified three options for a new petition seeking release: Rivera Verdugo may file on his own behalf with counsel, may file pro se on his own behalf, or a next friend may file on his behalf with counsel. In the third scenario, the next friend bears the burden of establishing standing to pursue the action in that capacity. The operative order dismissed ECF No. 1 without prejudice to refiling, directed the Clerk to close the case, and stated that the order resolved all pending motions.
Key Takeaways
- A Section 2241 petition is subject to Rule 4 screening, and no response is required when it plainly appears that the petitioner cannot obtain relief as filed.
- A next friend cannot pursue a habeas action for a person in custody without counsel because pro se litigants may represent only themselves.
- Next-friend standing requires both a qualifying inability of the petitioner to litigate and a significant relationship coupled with dedication to the petitioner's best interests.
- The dismissal was without prejudice, and the court expressly identified three refiling routes: the petitioner on his own behalf with counsel, pro se on his own behalf, or through a next friend filing with counsel.
- The order closed the case and resolved all pending motions without deciding the merits of the request for release.
Why It Matters
The decision applies two distinct requirements that can be easily conflated: a next friend must establish standing, and a next friend filing for someone in custody must appear through counsel. The court's disposition turned on the latter defect in the petition as currently filed, while also explaining the standing burden that would apply to a counseled next-friend refiling.
Because the dismissal was without prejudice, the order is a screening decision about the permissible manner of bringing the habeas action, not a determination that Rivera Verdugo's substantive claim lacked merit. Its practical guidance is the set of refiling routes—each tied to a specific actor and representation requirement—and the allocation of the standing burden to any next friend who files with counsel.