Gakou

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

TAMIKA PRESSLEY, ; No. 3:25cv2160

AS NEXT FRIEND OF :

MAHAMMADO LAMINE GAKOU, : (Judge Munley)

Petitioners

v. .

WARDEN OF PIKE COUNTY

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, :

Respondent

MEMORANDUM

Presently before the court is a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by Tamika Pressley (“Pressley”) as a “next

friend” for petitioner Mahammado Lamine Gakou (“Gakou”), an immigration

detainee confined at the Pike County Correctional Facility. (Doc. 1). Preliminary

review of the petition has been undertaken, and, for the reasons set forth below,

the court will dismiss the petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

Factual Background & Procedural History

Pressley submitted the habeas petition as Gakou’s “next friend” and

asserts that she is Gakou’s biological sister. (Doc. 1). Pressley alleges that

Gakou suffers from mental distress and sleep deprivation. (Id. at 2, 5). The

petition is signed by Tamika Pressley. (Id. at 6).

According to the petition, Gakou is in immigration detention at the Pike

County Correctional Facility. (Id. at 1-2). Pressley raises the following grounds

or relief on behalf of Gakou: (1) Gakou’s Fifth Amendment right to due process

| has been violated; (2) Gakou was subjected to deliberate indifference to his

medical needs; (3) Gakou’s ongoing detention is arbitrary and unlawful; and (4)

| Gakou is improperly classified, and he was denied a bond hearing before an

immigration judge. (Id. at 2-3).

| Pressley requests a temporary stay of Gakou’s removal and that he

undergo a mental health examination. (Id. at 5).

| ll. Legal Standard

Under Rule 4 of the rules governing habeas corpus petitions under 28

U.S.C. § 2254, a district court must promptly review a petition and dismiss it if it

is plain from the face of the petition that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. 28

|U.S.C. § 2254, Rule 4. District courts have the discretion to apply this rule in

| habeas corpus cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Rule

1(b).

Discussion

| Pressley seeks to file the petition as a “next friend” on Gakou’s behalf. The

| federal habeas statute requires that a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “shall

| be in writing signed and verified by the person for whose relief it is intended or

| someone acting in his behalf.” 28 U.S.C. § 2242: see also Rule 2(c)(5) of the

| Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts

| (requiring the petition to “be signed under penalty of perjury by the petitioner or

| by a person authorized to sign it for the petitioner under 28 U.S.C. § 2242”, and

| applicable to § 2241 petitions through Rule 1(b)). In limited circumstances,

| persons unable to prosecute their own action may have third persons—“next

féends*—etand in for them. Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 161-62 (1990).

| To qualify for “next friend” status, the third person must satisfy two

requirements: (i) “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 his own behalf to prosecute the action,” id. at

163 (citations omitted); (ii) “Second, the ‘next friend’ must be truly dedicated to

the best interests of the person on whose behalf [she] seeks to litigate,...and it

| has been further suggested that a ‘next friend’ must have some significant

relationship with the real party in interest,” id. at 163-64 (citations omitted). “The

| burden is on the ‘next friend’ clearly to establish the propriety of [her] status and

thereby justify the jurisdiction of the court.” Id. at 164 (citations omitted). Next

friend standing “is by no means granted automatically to whomever seeks to

pursue an action on behalf of another,” id. at 163, and next friend habeas

petitions are “rare.” Figueroa v. Rivera, 147 F.3d 77, 82 (1st Cir. 1998).

| Pressley states that she is Gakou’s biological sister, without any supporting

| documentation. (Doc. 1, at 5). Even assuming arguendo that Pressley has met

| the second requirement, she has failed to meet her burden of showing that

Gakou cannot appear on his own behalf to prosecute the action. Pressley

indicates that Gakou suffers from mental distress and confusion. (Id. at 2).

However, she has not provided any evidence that Gakou cannot litigate a federal

: habeas proceeding on his own behalf. Although Gakou is in immigration

detention, the petition does not show that Gakou lacks access to the court or is

otherwise incompetent to file a petition on his own.

Finally, Pressley, as a non-attorney (see Doc. 1, at 5), cannot represent

Gakou, even if acting as a “next friend.” See, e.g., Schlemmer v. Cent. Intel.

‘ons 804 F. App’x 127, 128 n.2 (3d Cir. 2020) (affirming the district court’s

| order denying inmate’s motion to confer “next friend” standing enabling him to file

a federal habeas petition for a fellow inmate; noting, among other things, that “as

a layperson, [the movant] cannot represent other parties”). Accordingly, as a

layperson, Pressley cannot litigate this case as a “next friend” without retaining

an attorney.

Conclusion

Consistent with the foregoing, the court will dismiss the petition without

| prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

An appropriate order shall issue.

YT QURT:

| . JUDGE/JULIA K. MUNLEY

| | United/States District Court

| Dated: November | | , 2025

|