Grigorii Fedorov v. Warden Adelanto ICE Processing Center

CIVIL MINUTES -GENERAL

Case No. 5:25-cv-01956-JLS-SP Date August 11, 2025

Title Grigorii Fedorov v. Warden Adelanto ICE Processing Center, et al.

Present: The Honorable Sheri Pym, United States Magistrate Judge

Kimberly Carter None None

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter/Recorder Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendant:

None None

Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Why Petition Should Not Be

Dismissed for Lack of Standing

On July 29, 2025, Grigorii Fedorov, proceeding through his wife Marina Federova

in pro se, filed an Emergency Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) and Motion

for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”). Docket no. 1. Grigorii Fedorov is being

held in federal custody in the Adelanto ICE Processing Center in Adelanto, CA. Id. at 1.

The Motion for a TRO seeking his immediate release was denied on August 1, 2025.

Docket no. 5.

In addition to the matter addressed in the court’s order denying the Motion for a

TRO, it appears the Petition suffers from a fundamental defect. Although the face page

of the Petition lists Grigorii Federov as the petitioner, the Petition was filed by Marina

Federova and the Petition itself makes clear she is the true petitioner, albeit one who is

seeking relief for Grigorii Federov. See, e.g., Petition at 3, 5, 11. But therein lies the

issue, in that Marina Fedorova does not appear to have standing to bring this Petition on

behalf of Grigorii Fedorov.

A federal court cannot consider the merits of a legal claim unless the person

seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of the court establishes the requisite standing to sue.

Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 154, 110 S. Ct. 1717, 109 L. Ed. 2d 135 (1990). A

litigant demonstrates standing by showing that he or she has suffered an injury in fact that

can be fairly traced to the challenged action and is likely to be redressed by a favorable

judicial decision. Id. at 155.

“It is well established that the privilege to represent oneself pro se provided by [28

U.S.C.] § 1654 is personal to the litigant and does not extend to other parties or entities.”

CIVIL MINUTES -GENERAL

Case No. 5:25-cv-01956-JLS-SP Date August 11, 2025

Title Grigorii Fedorov v. Warden Adelanto ICE Processing Center, et al.

Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted).

Consequently, “courts have routinely adhered to the general rule prohibiting pro se

plaintiffs from pursuing claims on behalf of others in a representative capacity.” Id. This

court’s Local Rule 83-2.2.1 expressly prohibits a pro se litigant from delegating his

representation to any other person. Because Marina Fedorova is not a lawyer authorized

to practice in this court, she may not pursue relief on behalf of Grigorii Fedorov through

the instant petition. See C.E. Pope Equity Tr. v. U.S., 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987)

(a non-attorney acting in pro per may not appear or seek relief on behalf of others).

Although Marina Federova lists herself as “next friend” of Grigorii Fedorov, there

is no indication that she has formally obtained “next friend” status. The concept of “next

friend” standing in habeas corpus proceedings is codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2242. Section

2242 states that an “[a]pplication for a writ of habeas corpus shall be in writing and

verified by the person for whose relief it is intended or by someone acting in his behalf.”

28 U.S.C. § 2242. Generally, a “next friend” appears in court on behalf of a prisoner who

is unable, usually because of mental incompetence or inaccessibility, to seek relief for

himself. Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 162.

In Whitmore, the United States Supreme Court recognized the concept of “next

friend” standing and explained that the next friend does not become a party to the action

but “simply pursues the cause on behalf of the detained person, who remains the real

party in interest.” Id. at 163. “Next friend” petitions have been filed in a variety of

contexts, but they have been utilized almost exclusively on behalf of capitally sentenced

defendants. See e.g., Demosthenes v. Baal, 495 U.S. 731, 110 S. Ct. 2223, 109 L. Ed. 2d

762 (1990) (per curiam); Lenhard v. Wolff, 443 U.S. 1306, 100 S. Ct. 3, 61 L. Ed. 2d 885

(1979); Evans v. Bennett, 440 U.S. 1301, 99 S. Ct. 1481, 59 L. Ed. 2d 756 (1979).

There are at least two prerequisites before a person will be granted “next friend”

standing under § 2242. Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 163. First, the “next friend” must provide

an adequate explanation, such as lack of access to the court, mental incompetence, or

other disability, why the real party in interest cannot appear on his own behalf to

prosecute the action. Id.;ss see also Brewer v. Lewis, 989 F.2d 1021, 1025-26 (9th Cir.

1993) (“next friend” must clearly establish by meaningful evidence that the detained

person is incompetent to assert his own rights). Second, the “next friend” must be truly

CIVIL MINUTES -GENERAL

Case No. 5:25-cv-01956-JLS-SP Date August 11, 2025

Title Grigorii Fedorov v. Warden Adelanto ICE Processing Center, et al.

dedicated to the best interests of the person on whose behalf he seeks to litigate.

Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 163. It has also been suggested that the “next friend” have some

significant relationship with the real party in interest. Id. at 163-64.

The burden to establish the propriety of his or her status is on the proposed “next

friend.” Id. at 164. As a result, a habeas petition must set forth some reason or

explanation for the need to resort to the use of a “next friend.” Martinez v. Mitchell, 2009

WL 381969, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2009) (citing Weber v. Garza, 570 F.2d 511, 513–

14 (5th Cir. 1978)). “It is clear that a ‘next friend’ may not file a petition for writ of

habeas corpus on behalf of a detainee if the detainee himself could file the petition.” Id.

(citing Wilson v. Lane, 870 F.2d 1250, 1253 (7th Cir. 1989)).

Here, Marina Federova indicates she is Grigorii Fedorov’s wife in the petition, but

she nowhere indicates why she filed the Petition on his behalf. There is no showing or

even suggestion that Grigorii Fedorov is incompetent or otherwise unable to file a

petition on his own behalf. Marina Fedorova therefore has not established that she

qualifies for “next friend” status.

For these reasons, the Petition appears subject to dismissal for lack of standing.

Accordingly, the court hereby issues this ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why the Petition

should not be dismissed for lack of standing. Petitioner is ordered to file a written

response to this Order to Show Cause on or before August 25, 2025.

The court warns petitioner that failure to timely file and serve a response as

directed in this Order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed

without prejudice for lack of standing, for failure to prosecute, and/or failure to

obey court orders.