Background
On October 30, 2026, Giselle Garcia filed a habeas petition as the purported next friend of Jorge Mendoza-Abarca, alleging that he was being detained in violation of his rights. Garcia completed and signed the petition on his behalf and identified herself as the Programs Director at NorCal Resist and manager of its Rapid Response hotline. The petition named the Warden of the California City Immigration Processing Center as respondent in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.
The court's November 4, 2026 order addressed who may prosecute the action, not whether the detention was lawful. It explained that next-friend standing is not automatic. Under Whitmore v. Arkansas, a next friend must adequately explain why the real party in interest cannot appear personally, such as through inaccessibility, mental incompetence, or another disability, and must be truly dedicated to that person's best interests. The next friend bears the burden of clearly establishing that status and thereby justifying the court's jurisdiction.
The order also invoked the general rule prohibiting pro se plaintiffs from pursuing claims on behalf of others in a representative capacity, decisions applying that rule to next-friend habeas litigation, and Local Rule 183(a), which requires an unrepresented individual to appear personally or by an attorney admitted to the court and forbids delegating that duty to another individual.
The Court’s Holding
Assuming arguendo that Garcia qualified for next-friend status and could initiate the petition, the court held that this would not authorize her to prosecute the action pro se on Mendoza-Abarca's behalf. The reasoning rested on the rule against representative-capacity pro se litigation, the habeas statute's lack of authorization for an unrepresented next friend to proceed, and Local Rule 183(a)'s personal-appearance requirement.
The order therefore required one of two responses within twenty-one days after service. Mendoza-Abarca could notify the court in writing that Garcia filed the petition with his knowledge and permission, declare under penalty of perjury that the petition's contents are true and correct, and confirm that he will appear on his own behalf and prosecute the habeas action. Alternatively, Garcia had to secure licensed counsel, and counsel had to file a notice of appearance. If Mendoza-Abarca proceeds personally, he may file his own motions, including a motion to appoint counsel.
The Clerk of Court was directed to send Mendoza-Abarca copies of the petition and the order and to send Garcia a copy of the order. The court stated that otherwise the petition would be dismissed without prejudice, while the numbered compliance provision specified that failure to comply would result in a recommendation of dismissal for failure to obey a court order. The order did not decide the detention allegations, appoint counsel, or conclusively determine Garcia's next-friend standing.
Key Takeaways
- Next-friend status may permit initiation of a habeas action in qualifying circumstances, but it does not authorize a nonlawyer to prosecute another person's case without counsel.
- Within twenty-one days of service, Mendoza-Abarca must file the sworn written confirmation of authorization, truth, and personal prosecution, or Garcia must have licensed counsel file a notice of appearance.
- The clerk must send Mendoza-Abarca copies of the petition and the order and send Garcia a copy of the order.
- Noncompliance will result in a recommendation of dismissal for failure to comply with a court order, while the order's reasoning separately states that the petition will otherwise be dismissed without prejudice.
- The merits of the detention challenge remain unresolved, and the court did not finally decide whether Garcia satisfied both requirements for next-friend standing.
Why It Matters
The order separates the ability to initiate a habeas petition for a detained person from the authority to litigate it. Even assuming Garcia could satisfy the next-friend requirements, she could not substitute her own pro se appearance for either Mendoza-Abarca's personal participation or representation by licensed counsel, consistent with Local Rule 183(a) and the rule against representative-capacity pro se litigation.
Its immediate consequence is procedural rather than a ruling on detention. The required sworn confirmation and personal-prosecution statement, or counsel's notice of appearance, will determine whether the petition can continue; the court also preserved the possibility that Mendoza-Abarca may seek appointed counsel after electing to proceed himself, and it left both the detention allegations and Garcia's next-friend standing undecided.
Read the full opinion (PDF) · Court docket