Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 ANDRES DE JESUS MOJICA, No. 1:26-cv-03831-KES-FJS (HC)

(A-Number: 239-832-5528)

12 ORDER REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT

Petitioner, OF HABEAS CORPUS FILED BY

13 “NEXT FRIEND”

v.

14 [21-DAY DEADLINE]

ON HABEAS CORPUS,

15

Respondent.

16

17

18 On May 18, 2026, a petition was filed by Petitioner’s “next friend” purportedly on his

19 behalf. (ECF No. 1.) The petition alleges Petitioner was wrongfully detained in violation of his

20 due process rights.

21 The Petition was completed and signed by Stephany Mojica. (ECF No. 1 at 7.) Ms. Mojica

22 indicates she is Petitioner’s daughter. (ECF No. 1 at 7.)

23 “‘[N]ext friends’ appear in court on behalf of detained prisoners who are unable, usually

24 because of mental incompetence or inaccessibility, to seek relief themselves.” Whitmore v.

25 Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 162 (1990) (citing United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11, 13,

26 n.3 (1955)). Yet “‘next friend’ standing is by no means granted automatically to whomever seeks

27 to pursue an action on behalf of another.” Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 163. In order to establish

28 standing, the next friend must (1) “provide an adequate explanation—such as inaccessibility,

1 mental incompetence, or other disability—why the real party in interest cannot appear on his own

2 behalf to prosecute the action”; and (2) “be truly dedicated to the best interests of the person on

3 whose behalf he seeks to litigate.” Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 163 (internal citations omitted). “The

4 burden is on the ‘next friend’ clearly to establish the propriety of his status and thereby justify the

5 jurisdiction of the court.” Id. at 164.

6 Regardless, “[c]ourts have routinely adhered to the general rule prohibiting pro se

7 plaintiffs from pursuing claims on behalf of others in a representative capacity.” Simon v.

8 Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008) (collecting cases). Thus, while the federal

9 habeas statute does not prevent a ‘next friend’ from pursuing a habeas action on behalf of another

10 under qualifying circumstances, “the statute does not authorize the ‘next friend’ to proceed

11 without an attorney.” United States v. Caputo, 2023 WL 5207318, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 14,

12 2023); see also Hinojosa v. Warden, SATF/SP, 2023 WL 2874169, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 10,

13 2023) (same), report and recommendation adopted, 2023 WL 4711303 (E.D. Cal. July 24, 2023)

14 (finding that even if next friend status was granted he “would have to be represented by counsel

15 in order to proceed as a ‘next friend’ because pro se litigants have no authority to represent

16 anyone other than themselves.”). Furthermore, the Local Rules of Practice for the United States

17 District Court, Eastern District of California provide in pertinent part:

18 Any individual who is representing himself or herself without an attorney must

appear personally or by courtesy appearance by an attorney admitted to the Bar of

19 this Court and may not delegate that duty to any other individual, including

husband or wife, or any other party on the same side appearing without an

20 attorney. Any individual representing himself or herself without an attorney is

bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, these Rules, and all

21 other applicable law. All obligations placed on “counsel” by these Rules apply to

individuals appearing in propria persona. Failure to comply therewith may be

22 ground for dismissal, judgment by default, or any other sanction appropriate under

these Rules. A corporation or other entity may appear only by an attorney.

23

24 L.R. 183(a). “Thus, in an action in which the sole plaintiff is incapacitated and cannot proceed

25 pro se, the plaintiff must be represented by competent counsel, or alternatively, the action must be

26 dismissed without prejudice.” Complot v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, 2023 WL 8234271, at *3 (D.

27 Ariz. Nov. 28, 2023) (citing Johns v. Cnty. of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997)).

28 Here, assuming arguendo that Ms. Mojica qualifies for next-friend status, which would

1 permit her to initiate the instant petition, she is not authorized to prosecute this action pro se on

2 Petitioner’s behalf. Thus, either (1) Petitioner Andres De Jesus Mojica (A-Number: 239-832-

3 5528) must notify the court in writing that he will appear on his own behalf to prosecute this

4 habeas action, or (2) Mr. Mojica must secure licensed counsel to proceed. If Petitioner chooses to

5 prosecute this action on his own behalf, he may then also file any motions on his own behalf,

6 including a motion to appoint to counsel. Otherwise, the Petition will be dismissed without

7 prejudice.

8 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED:

9 1. Within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order, either:

10 a. Petitioner Andres De Jesus Mojica should notify the court in writing that:

11 i. Ms. Mojica filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus with his

12 knowledge and permission,

13 ii. He declares under penalty of perjury that the contents of the petition are

14 true and correct, and

15 iii. Going forward, he will appear on his own behalf and prosecute this

16 habeas action;

17 -OR-

18 b. Andres De Jesus Mojica must secure licensed counsel, and counsel shall file a

19 notice of appearance in this matter.

20 2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to:

21 a. Send Petitioner Andres De Jesus Mojica a copy of the Petition (ECF No. 1), and

22 a copy of this order;

23 b. Send Stephany Mojica a copy of this order at the address listed on page 1 of the

24 Petition.

25

26

27

28

1 3. Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation of dismissal for

2 failure to comply with a court order.

3

4 IT IS SO ORDERED. Nyy 2 7

5 Dated: _ June 11, 2026 aM

UNITED STATESMAGISTRATE JUDGE

8

9

10

1]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28