Ibarra Gamboa v. Garland et al

1
3:26-cv-0469-DMS -JLB
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
PAVEL IBARRA GAMBOA,
A#216-984-056,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-0469-DMS-JLB
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
AND DISMISSING CASE
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Petitioner Pavel Ibarra Gamboa (“Petitioner”), an immigration detainee housed at
the Otay Mesa Detention Center, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, along with a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”), ECF Nos.
1, 2. Upon review, and for the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES the motion to
proceed in forma pauperis and DISMISSES the case without prejudice.
Both the Petition and the IFP Motion are signed by Petitioner’s “long-term partner,”
Osleidy Ofarrill Fuentes (“Fuentes”), as “next friend.” ECF No. 1-2 at 1; ECF No. 1 at 5;
ECF No. 2 at 1. “‘[N]ext friends’ appear in court on behalf of detained prisoners who are
unable, usually because of mental incompetence or inaccessibility, to seek relief
themselves.” Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 162 (1990) (citing United States ex rel.
Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11, 13, n.3 (1955)). However, “‘next friend’ standing is by no
Case 3:26-cv-00469-DMS-JLB Document 3 Filed 01/28/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
3:26-cv-0469-DMS -JLB
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
means granted automatically to whomever seeks to pursue an action on behalf of another.”
Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 163.
In order to establish standing, the next friend must: (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.” Id.
(internal citations omitted). “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.
In addition, “[c]ourts have routinely adhered to the general rule prohibiting pro se
plaintiffs from pursuing claims on behalf of others in a representative capacity.” Simon v.
Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008) (collecting cases). See Johns v.
County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[A] non-lawyer ‘has no authority
to appear as an attorney for others than himself.”) (quoting C.E. Pope Equity Trust v.
United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987)). While the federal habeas statute does
not prevent a “next friend” from pursuing a habeas action on behalf of, “it does not
authorize the ‘next friend’ to proceed without an attorney.” United States v. Caputo, 2023
WL 5207318, at *5 (E.D. Cal. 2023); see also Hinojosa v. Warden, SATF/SP, 2023 WL
2874169, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 2023) (“[E]ven if Mr. Bland’s motion for ‘next friend’ status
were granted, he would have to be represented by counsel in order to proceed as a ‘next
friend’ because pro se litigants have no authority to represent anyone other than
themselves.”), report and recommendation adopted, 2023 WL 4711303 (E.D. Cal. 2023).
Furthermore, this Court’s Local Rules provide, in relevant part:
Any person who is appearing propria persona, (without an attorney) (i.e. pro
se) must appear personally for such purpose and may not delegate that duty to
any other person, including husband or wife, or another party on the same side
appearing without an attorney.
S.D. Cal. CivLR 83.11(a).
Case 3:26-cv-00469-DMS-JLB Document 3 Filed 01/28/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
3:26-cv-0469-DMS -JLB
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
Here, because Fuentes does not appear to be an attorney, and she may not represent
Petitioner as “next friend” pro se, the Court DENIES the Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No.
2) and DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice. To have the case reopened, Petitioner
must, no later than March 16, 2026: (1) either pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit a request
to proceed IFP signed by Petitioner and (2) file an Amended Petition signed by Petitioner
or licensed attorney. For Petitioner’s convenience, the Clerk of Court shall attach to this
Order a blank application to proceed in forma pauperis and a blank § 2241 habeas form
petition.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 28, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-00469-DMS-JLB Document 3 Filed 01/28/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3