Migdalia Josefina Perez Quintero v. LaDeon Francis, Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, New York Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Todd Lyons, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Pamela Bondi, U.S. Attorney General; Executive Office for Immigration Review

Opinion

SUONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTEISST DRIISCTTR OICFT N CEOWU YROTR K 12/5/2025 PEREZ QUINTERO, MIGDALIA JOSEFINA, Petitioner, -against- LaDeon FRANCIS, Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, New 25-CV-10107 (MKV) York Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Todd LYONS, Acting Director, ORDER TO ANSWER, 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Kristi NOEM, Secretary, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; Pamela BONDI, U.S. Attorney General; EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW, Respondents. MARY KAY VYSKOCIL, United States District Judge: Petitioner has, through next of friend Eduardo Fabian Arias, filed a Petition for the writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Court, having examined the Petition, hereby ORDERS that: The Clerk of Court shall electronically notify the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York at jeffrey.oestericher@usdoj.gov that this Order has been issued. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that by noon December 9, 2025, Respondents shall file an answer, or other pleading, and a memorandum of law in response to the Petition. Petitioner must file a reply by noon December 11, 2025. In the reply, Eduardo Fabian Arias must address why he has standing to proceed as next of friend to Petitioner. See Ross ex rel. Dunham v. Lantz, 408 F.3d 121, 123 (2d Cir. 2005) (“For the federal courts to have jurisdiction over this petition for a writ of habeas corpus, . . . petitioner[‘s] ‘next friend[]’ must establish that she is legally that, and therefore that she has standing to bring the petition on his behalf.”). “[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 2th e petition.” Wang v. City of New York, No. No. 08– CV–4258 (DLI), 2009 WL 705966, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2009) (quoting Weber v. Garza, 570 F.2d 511, 514 (5th Cir.1978)) SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 5, 2025 New York, New York MARY KAY VYSKOCIL United States District Judge