Donieth Molina Arzola v. Facility Administrator et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 DONIET MOLINA ARZOLA, CASE NO. 2:26-cv-00717-DGE 11 Petitioner, ORDER ON NEXT FRIEND 12 v. STANDING, MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL, AND 13 FACILITY ADMINISTRATOR et al., PROCEEDING WITH ATTORNEY 14 Respondent. 15

16 On March 3, 2026, Fidel Molina Gonzalez, a “close family member of Petitioner,” filed 17 this petition for writ of habeas corpus on Petitioner’s behalf pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Dkt. 18 No. 1 at 15.) Gonzalez explains that because Petitioner is detained at the Northwest Immigration 19 and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) Processing Center (“NWIPC”), he has “limited ability to 20 freely prepare, file, and litigate this habeas action on his own”; therefore, Gonzalez states “next- 21 friend filing is necessary to secure prompt judicial review of the legality of Petitioner’s 22 detention.” (Id.) 23 24 1 A third party may file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a prisoner only 2 when that third party has standing as a “next friend.” United States v. Castle, Case No. 2:15-cr- 3 0190 KJM DB P, 2022 WL 16836743 at * 1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2022). There are two “firmly 4 rooted prerequisites” for “next friend” standing:

5 First, a “next friend” must provide an adequate explanation—such as inaccessibility, mental incompetence, or other disability—why the real party in 6 interest cannot appear on his own behalf to prosecute the action. Second, the “next friend” must be truly dedicated to the best interests of the person on whose 7 behalf he seeks to litigate, and it has been further suggested that a “next friend” must have some significant relationship with the real party in interest. 8 Dennis ex rel. Butko v. Budge, 378 F.3d 880, 888 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Whitmore v. Arkansas, 9 495 U.S. 149, 163–164 (1990)). The “burden is on the ‘next friend’ clearly to establish the 10 propriety of his status and thereby justify jurisdiction of the court.” Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 164. 11 “[C]ourts have routinely adhered to the general rule prohibiting pro se plaintiffs from 12 pursuing claims on behalf of others in a representative capacity.” Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 13 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008) (collecting cases); see also Johns v. Cnty. of San Diego, 114 14 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[A] non-lawyer ‘has no authority to appear as an attorney for 15 others than himself.’”) (quoting C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th 16 Cir. 1987)); C.E. Pope Equity Trust, 818 F.2d at 697 (“Although a non-attorney may appear in 17 propia persona in his own behalf, that privilege is personal to him.”). “Although the federal 18 habeas corpus statute permits a ‘next friend’ to pursue a habeas action on behalf of another in 19 certain circumstances, see 28 U.S.C. § 2246, the statute does not authorize the ‘next friend’ to 20 proceed without an attorney.” United States v. Caputo, No. 1:14-cr-00041-JLT-SKO-1, 2023 21 WL 5207318, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2023) (citing Lovett v. Adams, No. EDCV 18-00338- 22 MWF (E), 2018 WL 3239939, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 28, 2018)). 23 24 1 Here, even assuming Gonzalez qualifies for “next friend” status, which would permit him 2 to file a petition on Petitioner’s behalf, it does not allow him to prosecute this action pro se on his 3 family member’s behalf. Therefore, either (1) Gonzalez must secure licensed counsel to 4 proceed, or (2) Petitioner must notify the Court that he will appear on his own behalf to

5 prosecute this habeas action. Otherwise, the petition will be dismissed without prejudice. 6 The Court hereby ORDERS: 7 1. Within FORTY-FIVE (45) days from the date of service of this order, EITHER 8 a. Petitioner Doniet Molina Arzola must notify the court in writing that (1) 9 Gonzalez filed the petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. No. 1) with 10 Petitioner’s knowledge and permission; (2) Petitioner must declare under 11 penalty of perjury that the contents of the petition are true and correct; and (3) 12 going forward, Petitioner will appear on their own behalf to prosecute this 13 habeas action; OR 14 b. Gonzalez must secure licensed counsel and said counsel shall file a notice of

15 appearance in this matter. 16 2. Because Gonzalez is not an attorney, he may not file motions on behalf of Petitioner. 17 See Caputo, 2023 WL 5207318, at *5. The motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. No. 2) is 18 therefore DENIED. 19 3. The scheduling order (Dkt. No. 4) is STRICKEN to allow Petitioner and/or Gonzalez 20 to take the steps identified above. A new scheduling order will be issued once 21 compliance with this order is accomplished. 22 23

24 1 4. The Clerk is directed to (1) send Petitioner a copy of the petition (Dkt. No. 1) along 2 with this order and (2) send Gonzalez a copy of this order at the address listed in Dkt. 3 No. 1-2 at 1. 4 5. Failure to comply with this Order will result in dismissal without prejudice.

5 The Clerk is directed to calendar this event. 6 7 Dated this 4th day of March 2026. 8 a 9 David G. Estudillo 10 United States District Judge

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24