ALEXIS DE ARMAS on behalf of detainee MIGUEL DE ARMAS v. ICE / U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: February 4, 2026
• Docket: 2:26-cv-00069
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

ALEXIS DE ARMAS on behalf of

detainee MIGUEL DE ARMAS,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:26-cv-69-KCD-DNF

v.

ICE / U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT,

Defendant. /

ORDER Before the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by Alexis De Armas, on behalf of Miguel De Armas, who is being detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement at Alligator Alcatraz. (Doc. 1.) An “[a]pplication for a writ of habeas corpus shall be in writing signed and verified by the person for whose relief it is intended or by someone acting in his behalf.” 28 U.S.C. § 2242. The latter part of this provision codifies the common law tradition of permitting a “next friend” to litigate on behalf of a person who, because of incompetence, is unable to initiate a habeas action himself. See Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 162 (1990). But “‘[n]ext friend’ standing is by no means granted automatically[.]” Id. at 163. To demonstrate “next friend” status is warranted, the would-be next friend must (1) provide an adequate explanation for the necessity of the designation, such as the real party’s mental incompetence or lack of access to the courts and (2)

show he is “truly dedicated to the interests” of the real party. Id. Alexis has not met this standard. Although Alexis is Miguel’s brother, there is no allegation that Miguel is mentally incompetent or has been denied access to the courts. Even so, this Court sees numerous pro se petitioners in

immigration custody seeking relief who face the same conditions as Miguel and are able to litigate their petition. At bottom, Alexis offers nothing to show that Miguel warrants any special protection by a next friend to litigate on his behalf.

Because Alexis does not demonstrate the propriety of “next friend” status, he lacks standing to initiate this action on Miguel’s behalf. See Francis v. Warden, FCC Coleman-USP, 246 F. App’x 621, 622 (11th Cir. 2007) (“Absent ‘next friend’ status, an individual lacks Article III standing to

file a petition on another’s behalf, thus stripping the district court of jurisdiction to consider the petition.”); Weber v. Garza, 570 F.2d 511, 514 (5th Cir. 1978) (“[W]hen the application for habeas corpus filed by a would be ‘next friend’ does not set forth an adequate reason or explanation of the necessity

for resort to the ‘next friend’ device, the court is without jurisdiction to consider the petition.”). What is more, even if there was next-friend status, Alexis does not claim to be a lawyer. So he cannot represent his brother in this action. See Warner v. Sch. Bd. of Hillsborough Cnty., Fla., No. 23-12408, 2024 WL 2053698, at *2 (11th Cir. May 8, 2024) (“[A] parent cannot represent a child

pro se.”); Marcia Turner v. Neptune Towing & Recovery, Inc., No. 8:09-CV- 1071-T-27AEP, 2011 WL 2981786, at *2 (M.D. Fla. July 22, 2011) “Under Rule 17(c), a representative does not have the right to appear on behalf of a minor or an incompetent person unless that representative is represented by counsel.”); Bey on behalf of Baxter v. Fla., No. 4:24CV517/MW/ZCB, 2025 WL 3501425, at *1 n.2 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 6, 2025). Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. The Petition (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. 2. The Clerk shall enter judgment dismissing this case without prejudice, terminate any pending motions as moot, and close the case. ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on February 4, 2026.

KyleC.Dudek ~~

United States District Judge