The Advocates for Human Rights et al v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
The Advocates for Human Rights; L.H.M.,
through her next friend C.A.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
U.S. 	Department 	of 	Homeland 	Security;
Kristi 	Noem, 	in 	her 	official 	capacity 	as
Secretary 	of 	Homeland 	Security; 	U.S.
Immigration 	and 	Customs 	Enforcement;
Todd Lyons, in his official capacity as Acting
Director 	of 	Immigration 	and 	Customs
Enforcement; Marcos Charles, in his official
capacity as the Acting Executive Director for
Immigration 	and 	Customs 	Enforcement’s
Enforcement and Removal Operations; David
Easterwood, in his official capacity as Acting
Field Office Director for Immigration and
Customs 	Enforcement’s 	Enforcement 	and
Removal Operations St. Paul Field Office;
U.S. Federal Protective Service; Faron K.
Paramore, in his official capacity as Director
of the Federal Protective Service,
Defendants,
No. 26-cv-749 (NEB/DLM)
ORDER
Plaintiffs The Advocates for Human Rights and L.H.M. (“Plaintiff”) move the
Court for an Order removing C.A. as next friend of L.H.M. and amending the case caption
to reflect that change. (Doc. 103.) Defendants oppose the motion. (Doc. 126.) For the
reasons explained below Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remove Next Friend and Amend Caption
(Doc. 103) is granted.
CASE 0:26-cv-00749-NEB-DLM Doc. 130 Filed 03/03/26 Page 1 of 3

2
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs represent that when they filed their lawsuit on January 27, 2026, Plaintiff
L.H.M. was detained by Defendants and could not access her attorney. (Docs. 21 ¶¶ 7-10;
77 ¶¶ 10-18.) As a result, L.H.M.’s relative C.A. retained counsel to bring the lawsuit on
behalf of L.H.M., as L.H.M.’s next friend. (See Docs. 5 ¶¶ 3-10; 1 ¶ 6.) On January 31,
2026, L.H.M. was released from custody on a writ of habeas corpus but was dealing with
the effects of a concussion she suffered while in Defendants’ custody. (See Doc. 77 ¶¶ 13,
25, 27.) Plaintiffs represent that L.H.M. has sufficiently recovered from her concussion and
is now capable of representing herself in this lawsuit, and thus argue that C.A. should be
removed as L.H.M.’s next friend.
Defendants contend that if C.A. is removed as L.H.M.’s next friend, they might be
deprived of the ability to compel C.A. to be cross-examined or compel discovery from C.A.
since Plaintiffs have refused to disclose the identities of either L.H.M. or C.A. This, say
Defendants, means that they are at strong risk of being prejudiced by C.A.’s removal from
this action.
ANALYSIS
Because L.H.M. was detained without access to her attorney when this lawsuit was
filed and then suffered the effects of a concussion, L.H.M. brought this action using a next
friend. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c). When, as here, a disability which
requires a litigant to use a next friend is removed, it is appropriate for the Court to likewise
remove the next friend. See Dalton v. Town of Silver City, No. 17-cv-1143 (WJ/GBW),
2022 WL 2106247, at *1 (D.N.M. June 10, 2022) (collecting cases); Walker v. Evans, No.
CASE 0:26-cv-00749-NEB-DLM Doc. 130 Filed 03/03/26 Page 2 of 3

3
10-cv-12596, 2011 WL 3583248, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 15, 2011). Plaintiffs represent
that L.H.M. has now sufficiently recovered to participate fully on her own behalf in this
action, without need for a next friend. Based on this representation, the Court concludes it
is appropriate to remove L.H.M.’s next friend C.A. Moreover, the Court is unpersuaded by
Defendants’ contention that they will be unable to depose C.A. if C.A. is removed as next
friend. There is a pending motion before the District Court for L.H.M. and C.A. to appear
anonymously; if that motion is granted, Defendants would never learn C.A.’s identity in
any event, and if it is denied, Defendants are free to seek C.A.’s deposition via subpoena
once C.A.’s identity is disclosed.
ORDER
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remove Next Friend and Amend Caption (Doc.
103) is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the case caption to reflect the
Plaintiffs as: The Advocates for Human Rights and L.H.M., on her own behalf and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals.
SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 3, 2026 	s/Douglas L. Micko
DOUGLAS L. MICKO
United States Magistrate Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00749-NEB-DLM Doc. 130 Filed 03/03/26 Page 3 of 3