Perez v. Bondi et al

1
25-cv-3820-AGS-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Fidel FLOREZ PEREZ, by next friend
Jesus Rios Tello,
Petitioner,
v.
Pamela BONDI, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 25-cv-3820-AGS-MSB
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
ACT AS NEXT FRIEND (ECF 3),
DENYING MOTION FOR
IMMEDIATE RELEASE (ECF 2),
AND DISMISSING PETITION FOR
LACK OF STANDING
Petitioner Fidel Florez Perez, through his nephew Jesus Rios Tello, seeks a writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to free him from immigration detention. But Tello’s
request to function as Florez Perez’s “next friend” fails, and so the petition must be
dismissed for lack of standing.
Federal law allows that an “[a]pplication 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 (emphasis added). But such “‘next friend’ standing
is by no means granted automatically to whomever seeks to pursue an action on behalf of
another.” Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163 (1990). “In order to establish next-
friend standing, the putative next friend must show: (1) that the petitioner is unable to
litigate his own cause due to mental incapacity, lack of access to court, or other similar
disability; and (2) the next friend has some significant relationship with, and is truly
dedicated to the best interests of, the petitioner.” Coalition of Clergy, Laws., & Professors
v. Bush, 310 F.3d 1153, 1159–60 (9th Cir. 2002). Because it contravenes the normal
concepts of Article III standing, the “burden is on the ‘next friend’ clearly to establish the
propriety of his status and thereby justify the jurisdiction of the court.” Whitmore, 495 U.S.
at 164.
Tello fails to carry his burden as to the first prong—petitioner’s inability to litigate
the case on his own. All Tello offers is the following conclusory statement: “Petitioner
Case 3:25-cv-03820-AGS-MSB Document 4 Filed 12/31/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
25-cv-3820-AGS-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
faces barriers including detention, restricted communication, and language limitations.”
(ECF 3, at 1.) But every habeas case involves garden-variety detention and restricted
communication, as habeas petitions always involve petitioners who are in custody. See
generally 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 & 2242. Regardless, such “bald assertion[s]” are insufficient
to establish next-friend status. See Coalition of Clergy, 310 F.3d at 1160 n.2; see also
Dennis ex rel. Butko v. Budge, 378 F.3d 880, 889 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The putative next friend
must present meaningful evidence that petitioner is suffering from a mental disease,
disorder, or defect that substantially affects his capacity to make an intelligent decision.”
(cleaned up)). Given the complete lack of evidence—meaningful or otherwise—the Court
denies the motion for Tello to litigate this action as a “next friend.”
Without such next-friend authorization, Tello lacks standing to bring this suit, and it
must be dismissed without prejudice. See Pinson v. Blanckensee, 834 F. App’x 427, 428
(9th Cir. 2021) (holding the “district court properly dismissed the action” because the
putative next friend “failed to meet the requirements for next-friend standing under § 2242”
and as “a non-attorney, cannot represent others in court”); see also United States v.
Shatswell, No. 2:12-cr-00271-TLN-CKD-1, 2020 WL 529196, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 3,
2020) (“[W]hen the application for habeas corpus filed by a would be ‘next friend’ does
not set forth an adequate reason or explanation of the necessity for resort to the ‘next friend’
device, 	the 	court 	is 	without 	jurisdiction 	to 	consider 	the 	petition.”), 	report 	and
recommendation adopted, No. 2:12-cr-00271-TLN-CKD-1, 2020 WL 2216957 (E.D. Cal.
May 7, 2020 ). In addition, the motion for emergency injunctive relief is denied as moot.
The Clerk is directed to close this case. By January 23, 2026, Tello may file an
updated motion to proceed as next friend or Florez Perez may file notice that he intends to
pursue the petition in his own capacity. If so, the Clerk will reopen the case.
Dated: December 31, 2025
___________________________
Hon. Andrew G. Schopler
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-03820-AGS-MSB Document 4 Filed 12/31/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2