# Opinion

> District Court, E.D. California · April 17, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11380824

## Case

- **Full name:** Elieser David Mejia Moran v. Tae D. Johnson, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** April 17, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11380824

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 ELIESER DAVID MEJIA MORAN, Case No. 1:26-cv-01772-JLT-HBK (HC)
12 Petitioner, ORDER RE: NEXT FRIEND
13 v. TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE
14 TAE D. JOHNSON, et al.,

15 Respondents.
16
17
18
19 Pending before the Court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241,
20 docketed on March 5, 2026, challenging the detention without a bond hearing of immigrant
21 detainee Elieser David Mejia Moran (“Petitioner”) in U.S. Immigration Customs and
22 Enforcement (ICE) custody at the California City Detention Center in California City, California.
23 (Doc. 1, “Petition”). The Petition was completed and signed on Petitioner’s behalf “by and
24 through Next Friend” Jason Lee Quimby, Petitioner’s “close friend.” (Doc. 1 at 3). Mr. Quimby
25 also submitted a declaration of next friend, and a motion for a temporary restraining order.
26 (Docs. 2, 3). On March 6, 2026, the assigned district judge denied the motion for temporary
27 restraining order as untimely and referred the matter to the undersigned for determination on the
28 merits. (Doc. 7). On March 27, 2026, Respondent filed a response to the Petition (Doc. 11), and
1 on April 13, 2026, Mr. Quimby filed a traverse and a motion for leave to file traverse “out of
2 time.” (Docs. 13, 14).
3 Regarding Mr. Quimby’s next of friend designation, “‘next friends’ appear in court on
4 behalf of detained prisoners who are unable, usually because of mental incompetence or
5 inaccessibility, to seek relief themselves.” Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 162 (1990)
6 (citing United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11, 13, n.3 (1955)). However, “‘next
7 friend’ standing is by no means granted automatically to whomever seeks to pursue an action on
8 behalf of another.” Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 163. In order to establish standing, the next friend
9 must (1) “provide an adequate explanation—such as inaccessibility, mental incompetence, or
10 other disability—why the real party in interest cannot appear on his own behalf to prosecute the
11 action”; and (2) “be truly dedicated to the best interests of the person on whose behalf he seeks to
12 litigate.” Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 163 (internal citations omitted). “The burden is on the ‘next
13 friend’ clearly to establish the propriety of his status and thereby justify the jurisdiction of the
14 court.” Id. at 164.
15 Regardless, “[c]ourts have routinely adhered to the general rule prohibiting pro se
16 plaintiffs from pursuing claims on behalf of others in a representative capacity.” Simon v.
17 Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008) (collecting cases). Thus, while the federal
18 habeas statute does not prevent a ‘next friend’ from pursuing a habeas action on behalf of another
19 under qualifying circumstances, “the statute does not authorize the ‘next friend’ to proceed
20 without an attorney.” United States v. Caputo, 2023 WL 5207318, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 14,
21 2023); see also Hinojosa v. Warden, SATF/SP, 2023 WL 2874169, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 10,
22 2023) (same), report and recommendation adopted, 2023 WL 4711303 (E.D. Cal. July 24, 2023)
23 (finding that even if next friend status was granted he “would have to be represented by counsel
24 in order to proceed as a ‘next friend’ because pro se litigants have no authority to represent
25 anyone other than themselves.”). Furthermore, the Local Rules of Practice for the United States
26 District Court, Eastern District of California provide in pertinent part:
27
Any individual who is representing himself or herself without an
28 attorney must appear personally or by courtesy appearance by an
1 attorney admitted to the Bar of this Court and may not delegate that
duty to any other individual, including husband or wife, or any other
2 party on the same side appearing without an attorney. Any individual
representing himself or herself without an attorney is bound by the
3 Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, these Rules, and all
other applicable law. All obligations placed on “counsel” by these
4 Rules apply to individuals appearing in propria persona. Failure to
comply therewith may be ground for dismissal, judgment by default,
5 or any other sanction appropriate under these Rules. A corporation
or other entity may appear only by an attorney.
6
7 L.R. 183(a). “Thus, in an action in which the sole plaintiff is incapacitated and cannot proceed
8 pro se, the plaintiff must be represented by competent counsel, or alternatively, the action must be
9 dismissed without prejudice.” Complot v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, 2023 WL 8234271, at *3 (D.
10 Ariz. Nov. 28, 2023) (citing Johns v. Cnty. of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997)).
11 Here, assuming arguendo that Mr. Quimby qualifies for next-friend status, which would
12 permit him to initiate the instant petition, he is not authorized to prosecute this action pro se on
13 Petitioner’s behalf. Thus, either (1) Mr. Quimby must secure licensed counsel to proceed, or (2)
14 Petitioner Elieser David Mejia Moran must notify the Court in writing that he will appear on his
15 own behalf to prosecute this habeas action. If he chooses to prosecute this action on his own
16 behalf, he may then also file any motions on his own behalf, including a motion to appoint to
17 counsel. Otherwise, the Petition will be dismissed without prejudice.
18 Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
19 1. No later than twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this Order, either:
20 a. Petitioner Elieser David Mejia Moran should notify the Court in writing that:
21 i. Mr. Quimby filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus with his
22 knowledge and permission,
23 ii. He declares under penalty of perjury that the contents of the petition are
24 true and correct, and
25 iii. Going forward, he will appear on his own behalf and prosecute this
26 habeas action; OR
27 b. Jason L. Quimby must secure licensed counsel, and counsel shall file a notice
28 of appearance in this matter.
1 2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to:
2 a. Update Petitioner’s address to:
3 California City Detention Facility
4 22844 Virginia Boulevard
5 California City, CA 93505
6 b. Send Petitioner Elieser David Mejia Moran a copy of the Petition (Doc. 1), the
7 response (Doc. 11), the traverse (Doc. 14), and a copy of this Order;
8 c. Send Jason L. Quimby a copy of this Order at the address listed on page 3 of
9 the Petition.
10 3. Failure to comply with this Order will result in a recommendation of dismissal for
11 failure to comply with a court order.
12
| Dated: _ April 17. 2026 Mile. Wh. foareh Zaskth
14 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11380824. Public record. Not legal advice.