The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
9
10
DONIET MOLINA ARZOLA, CASE NO. 2:26-cv-00717-DGE
11
Petitioner, ORDER ON NEXT FRIEND
12 v. STANDING, MOTION TO
APPOINT COUNSEL, AND
13 FACILITY ADMINISTRATOR et al., PROCEEDING WITH ATTORNEY
14 Respondent.
15
16 On March 3, 2026, Fidel Molina Gonzalez, a “close family member of Petitioner,” filed
17 this petition for writ of habeas corpus on Petitioner’s behalf pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Dkt.
18 No. 1 at 15.) Gonzalez explains that because Petitioner is detained at the Northwest Immigration
19 and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) Processing Center (“NWIPC”), he has “limited ability to
20 freely prepare, file, and litigate this habeas action on his own”; therefore, Gonzalez states “next-
21 friend filing is necessary to secure prompt judicial review of the legality of Petitioner’s
22 detention.” (Id.)
23
24
1 A third party may file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a prisoner only
2 when that third party has standing as a “next friend.” United States v. Castle, Case No. 2:15-cr-
3 0190 KJM DB P, 2022 WL 16836743 at * 1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2022). There are two “firmly
4 rooted prerequisites” for “next friend” standing:
5 First, a “next friend” must provide an adequate explanation—such as
inaccessibility, mental incompetence, or other disability—why the real party in
6 interest cannot appear on his own behalf to prosecute the action. Second, the
“next friend” must be truly dedicated to the best interests of the person on whose
7 behalf he seeks to litigate, and it has been further suggested that a “next friend”
must have some significant relationship with the real party in interest.
8
Dennis ex rel. Butko v. Budge, 378 F.3d 880, 888 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Whitmore v. Arkansas,
9
495 U.S. 149, 163–164 (1990)). The “burden is on the ‘next friend’ clearly to establish the
10
propriety of his status and thereby justify jurisdiction of the court.” Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 164.
11
“[C]ourts have routinely adhered to the general rule prohibiting pro se plaintiffs from
12
pursuing claims on behalf of others in a representative capacity.” Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc.,
13
546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008) (collecting cases); see also Johns v. Cnty. of San Diego, 114
14
F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[A] non-lawyer ‘has no authority to appear as an attorney for
15
others than himself.’”) (quoting C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th
16
Cir. 1987)); C.E. Pope Equity Trust, 818 F.2d at 697 (“Although a non-attorney may appear in
17
propia persona in his own behalf, that privilege is personal to him.”). “Although the federal
18
habeas corpus statute permits a ‘next friend’ to pursue a habeas action on behalf of another in
19
certain circumstances, see 28 U.S.C. § 2246, the statute does not authorize the ‘next friend’ to
20
proceed without an attorney.” United States v. Caputo, No. 1:14-cr-00041-JLT-SKO-1, 2023
21
WL 5207318, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2023) (citing Lovett v. Adams, No. EDCV 18-00338-
22
MWF (E), 2018 WL 3239939, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 28, 2018)).
23
24
1 Here, even assuming Gonzalez qualifies for “next friend” status, which would permit him
2 to file a petition on Petitioner’s behalf, it does not allow him to prosecute this action pro se on his
3 family member’s behalf. Therefore, either (1) Gonzalez must secure licensed counsel to
4 proceed, or (2) Petitioner must notify the Court that he will appear on his own behalf to
5 prosecute this habeas action. Otherwise, the petition will be dismissed without prejudice.
6 The Court hereby ORDERS:
7 1. Within FORTY-FIVE (45) days from the date of service of this order, EITHER
8 a. Petitioner Doniet Molina Arzola must notify the court in writing that (1)
9 Gonzalez filed the petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. No. 1) with
10 Petitioner’s knowledge and permission; (2) Petitioner must declare under
11 penalty of perjury that the contents of the petition are true and correct; and (3)
12 going forward, Petitioner will appear on their own behalf to prosecute this
13 habeas action; OR
14 b. Gonzalez must secure licensed counsel and said counsel shall file a notice of
15 appearance in this matter.
16 2. Because Gonzalez is not an attorney, he may not file motions on behalf of Petitioner.
17 See Caputo, 2023 WL 5207318, at *5. The motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. No. 2) is
18 therefore DENIED.
19 3. The scheduling order (Dkt. No. 4) is STRICKEN to allow Petitioner and/or Gonzalez
20 to take the steps identified above. A new scheduling order will be issued once
21 compliance with this order is accomplished.
22
23
24
1 4. The Clerk is directed to (1) send Petitioner a copy of the petition (Dkt. No. 1) along
2 with this order and (2) send Gonzalez a copy of this order at the address listed in Dkt.
3 No. 1-2 at 1.
4 5. Failure to comply with this Order will result in dismissal without prejudice.
5 The Clerk is directed to calendar this event.
6
7 Dated this 4th day of March 2026.
8
a
9
David G. Estudillo
10 United States District Judge
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24