Rivero-Tapanes v. Unknown Party et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
GRENIER RIVERO-TAPANES,
Petitioner,
v. Case No.: 2:26-cv-00286-SPC-DNF
WARDEN,
Respondent, /
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Grenier Rivero-Tapanes’s pro se Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1). Rivero-Tapanes claims he is unlawfully detained by
immigration authorities because there is no significant likelihood of his
removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. But the petition is unsigned.
“Application for a writ of habeas corpus shall be in writing signed and verified
by the person for whose relief it is intended or by someone acting in his behalf.”
28 U.S.C. § 2242.
In place of a signature, the person who prepared the petition typed,
“Authorized Representative.” The latter part of § 2242 codifies the common
law tradition of permitting a “next friend” to litigate on behalf of a detained
person who is unable to seek relief himself, “usually because of mental
incompetence or inaccessibility.” Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 162
(1990). But “’next friend’ standing is by no means granted automatically to
Case 2:26-cv-01542-RM--CDB Document 2 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 3

whomever seeks to pursue an action on behalf of another.” Id. 1t 163. The
“next friend” must adequately explain why the detainee cannot appear on his
own behalf to prosecute the action, and he must be truly dedicated to the best
interests of the detainee. Id. “The burden is on the ‘next friend’ clearly to
establish the propriety of his status and thereby justify the jurisdiction of the
court.” Id. at 164.
Also, the petition does not identify a respondent. A habeas petitioner
must state “the name of the person who has custody over him and by virtue of
what claim or authority, if known.” 28 U.S.C. § 2242. The immediate
custodian—i.e., the warden of the detention facility—is normally the only
proper respondent in a habeas action, but immigration detention is more
complicated. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 435 n.8 (2004) (declining
to decide whether the Attorney General is a proper respondent to a habeas
action filed by an alien pending deportation); see also Masingene v. Martin, 424
F. Supp. 3d 1298, 1302 (S.D. Fla. 2020) (finding the director of ICE’s local field
office is a more appropriate respondent than the warden of a state-run
detention facility).
For these reasons, Rivero-Tapanes’s petition is DISMISSED without
prejudice. Rivero-Tapanes may file a signed and verified amended petition
within 21 days of this order. Otherwise, the Court will enter judgment and
Case 2:26-cv-01542-RM--CDB Document 2 Filed 02/11/26 Page 2 of 3

close this case without further notice. If someone seeks to file on Rivero-
Tapanes’s behalf, they must establish the propriety of “next friend” status.
DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on February 11, 2026.
SA: FTMP-1
Case 2:26-cv-01542-RM--CDB Document 2 Filed 02/11/26 Page 3 of 3