Harlys Daniel Rosario Cantillo v. Warden Northwest Detention Center et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 HARLYS DANIEL ROSARIO CASE NO. 2:26-cv-00575-DGE 11 CANTILLO, ORDER REGARDING NEXT 12 Petitioner, FRIEND STANDING AND v. PROCEEDING WITH ATTORNEY 13 (DKT. NO. 5) WARDEN NORTHWEST DETENTION 14 CENTER et al., 15 Respondents. 16

17 On February 17, 2026, Kerllys Arteta, seeking to act as “next friend,” filed a petition for 18 writ of habeas corpus on behalf of her husband, Petitioner Harlys Rosario Cantillo. (Dkt. No. 1.) 19 The Court ordered that a formal motion establishing Arteta meets the requirements to proceed as 20 a “next friend” be filed before the Court would take further action on this matter. (Dkt. No. 4.) 21 On February 23, 2026, Arteta filed a motion for leave to proceed as “next friend” on behalf of 22 Petitioner. (Dkt. No. 5.) Arteta states Petitioner is her husband and the father of her child, she 23 maintains regular communication with him, and she is fully aware of his legal circumstances and 24 detention status. (Id. at 2.) Arteta explains that Petitioner could not appear on his own behalf 1 because he “has been subject to multiple detention transfers that made it impossible for him to 2 access legal documents or sign filings in a timely manner,” and due to these circumstances Arteta 3 and Petitioner “agreed during [their] last communication that [Arteta] would sign and file on his 4 behalf.” (Id. at 2–3.)

5 A third party may file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a prisoner only 6 when that third party has standing as a “next friend.” United States v. Castle, Case No. 2:15-cr- 7 0190 KJM DB P, 2022 WL 16836743 at * 1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2022). There are two “firmly 8 rooted prerequisites” for “next friend” standing: 9 “First, a ‘next friend’ must provide an adequate explanation—such as inaccessibility, mental incompetence, or other disability—why the real party in interest cannot appear on 10 his own behalf to prosecute the action. Second, the “next friend” must be truly dedicated to the best interests of the person on whose behalf he seeks to litigate, and it has been 11 further suggested that a ‘next friend’ must have some significant relationship with the real party in interest.” 12 Dennis ex rel. Butko v. Budge, 378 F.3d 880, 888 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Whitmore v. Arkansas, 13 495 U.S. 149, 163–164 (1990)). The “burden is on the ‘next friend’ clearly to establish the 14 propriety of his status and thereby justify jurisdiction of the court.” Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 164. 15 “[C]ourts have routinely adhered to the general rule prohibiting pro se plaintiffs from 16 pursuing claims on behalf of others in a representative capacity.” Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 17 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008) (collecting cases); see also Johns v. Cnty. of San Diego, 114 18 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[A] non-lawyer ‘has no authority to appear as an attorney for 19 others than himself.’”) (quoting C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th 20 Cir. 1987)); C.E. Pope Equity Trust, 818 F.2d at 697 (“Although a non-attorney may appear in 21 propia persona in his own behalf, that privilege is personal to him.”). “Although the federal 22 habeas corpus statute permits a ‘next friend’ to pursue a habeas action on behalf of another in 23 certain circumstances, see 28 U.S.C. § 2246, the statute does not authorize the ‘next friend’ to 24 1 proceed without an attorney.” United States v. Caputo, No. 1:14-cr-00041-JLT-SKO-1, 2023 2 WL 5207318, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2023) (citing Lovett v. Adams, No. EDCV 18-00338- 3 MWF (E), 2018 WL 3239939, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 28, 2018). 4 Even assuming Arteta qualifies for “next friend” status, which would permit her to file a

5 petition on Petitioner’s behalf, it does not allow her to prosecute this action pro se on her 6 husband’s behalf. Therefore, either (1) Arteta must secure licensed counsel to proceed, or (2) 7 Petitioner must notify the Court that he will appear on his own behalf to prosecute this habeas 8 action. Otherwise, the petition will be dismissed without prejudice. 9 The Court hereby ORDERS: 10 1. Within FORTY-FIVE (45) days from the date of service of this order, EITHER 11 a. Petitioner must notify the court in writing that (1) his wife filed the petition 12 for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. No. 1) with his knowledge and permission; (2) 13 he declares under penalty of perjury that the contents of the petition are true 14 and correct; and (3) going forward, he will appear on his own behalf to

15 prosecute this habeas action; OR 16 b. Arteta must secure licensed counsel and said counsel shall file a notice of 17 appearance in this matter. 18 2. The Clerk is directed to (1) send Petitioner a copy of the petition (Dkt. No. 1) along 19 with this order and (2) send Arteta a copy of this order at the address listed in Dkt. 20 No. 5 at 4. 21 3. Failure to comply with this Order will result in a dismissal without prejudice. 22 The Clerk is directed to calendar this event. 23

24 1 Dated this 27th day of February, 2026. 2 A 3 David G. Estudillo 4 United States District Judge

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24