RAKOCZY v. PIRRO et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
AVONCINNA RAKOCZY 	)
Next Friend, 	)
)
Petitioner. 	)
)
v. 	) 	Civil Action No. 26-00561 (UNA)
)
)
JEANINE F. PIRRO et al., 	)
)
Respondents. 	)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Avoncinna Rakoczy, a resident of Miami, Florida, has filed a “next friend” Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). 	For the
following reasons, the Court grants the IFP motion and dismisses the case.
Petitioner seeks “to inquire into the present restraint of” Richard Louis Castro “and to
determine whether such restraint is lawful in conscience.” Pet. ¶ 1, ECF No. 1. Based on the full
name and register number provided, id. ¶ 15, Castro is a federal prisoner designated to Coleman
Federal Correctional Institution in Sumterville, Florida. See www.bop.gov/inmateloc.
A “next friend” is not a party to the habeas corpus action “but simply pursues the cause on
behalf of the detained person, who remains the real party in interest.” Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495
U.S. 149, 163 (1990). “[N]ext friend standing is by no means granted automatically,” id., and “the
defect of standing is a defect in subject matter jurisdiction.” Haase v. Sessions, 835 F.2d 902, 906
(D.C. Cir. 1987). 	The burden rests with the purported next friend to (1) “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” and (2) “be truly dedicated to
the best interests of the person on whose behalf he seeks to litigate[.]” Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 163.
In other words, the “next friend” must “clearly . . . establish the propriety of his [or her] status [to]
Case 1:26-cv-00561-UNA Document 14 Filed 04/27/26 Page 1 of 2

2
justify the jurisdiction of the court.” Id. at 164; see American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
on behalf of Unnamed U.S. Citizen v. Mattis, 286 F. Supp. 3d 53, 57 (D.D.C. 2017) (“The onus is
on the putative next friend to establish the requirements for standing.”).
Petitioner’s next friend status is based on the assertion that Castro’s “custody and restraint”
prevents his ability “to personally appear to seek immediate habeas relief.” 	Pet. ¶ 3. 	Not so.
Habeas actions challenging custody are initiated by filing a verified written application, 28 U.S.C.
§ 2242, “directed to” the petitioner’s immediate custodian, id. § 2243; see Rumsfeld v. Padilla,
542 U.S. 426, 442 (2004) (holding that the habeas petitioner’s immediate custodian is the only
proper respondent). 	The court having personal jurisdiction over the immediate custodian is
“required to produce at [a] hearing the body of the person detained.” 	28 U.S.C. § 2243.
Petitioner’s inaccessibility claim is unfounded, and a “litigant asserting only a generalized interest
in constitutional governance” may not “circumvent the jurisdictional limits of Art. III [standing]
simply by assuming the mantle of ‘next friend.’ ” Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 164. Therefore, this case
will be dismissed by separate order.
_________/s/____________
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS
Date: April 27, 2026 	United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00561-UNA Document 14 Filed 04/27/26 Page 2 of 2