Isaac Solano Garcia v. Judith Almodovar, in her official capacity as Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, New York City, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Kristi Noem, in her official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Pamela Bondi, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the United States; Executive Office for Immigration Review

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: November 19, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-09571
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11/19/2025 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ISAAC SOLANO GARCIA, Petitioner, -against- JUDITH ALMODOVAR, in her official capacity as Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal 1:25-cv-9571-MKV Operations, New York City, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; KRISTI NOEM, in her ORDER OF DISMISSAL official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; PAMELA BONDI, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the United States; EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW, Respondents.

MARY KAY VYSKOCIL, United States District Judge: The Court is in receipt of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [ECF No. 1] (the “Petition”). The Petition was filed on behalf of Mr. Isaac Solano Garcia (the “Petitioner”) by a “friend.” See [ECF No. 2] at 1 (listing “Daisy Nava-Perez” as “Friend” in the “ATTORNEYS” field); see also Petition at 10 (Declaration signed by an attorney who, at the time the Petition was filed, had not appeared in this case). The Petition must be dismissed. “For the federal courts to have jurisdiction over this petition for a writ of habeas corpus, . . . [P]etitioner[’s] . . . ‘next friend[]’ must establish that she is legally that, and therefore that she has standing to bring the petition on his behalf.” Ross ex rel. Dunham v. Lantz, 408 F.3d 121, 123 (2d Cir. 2005). “[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.” Wang v. City of New York, 2009 WL 705966, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2009) (quoting Weber v. Garza, 570 F.2d 511, 514 (5th Cir.1978)). Accordingly, the Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice.

SO ORDERED:

DATED: November 19, 2025 ____________________________ New York, New York Mary Kay Vyskocil United States District Judge