Wicha v. Warden, El Valle Detention Facility

Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
ANDRZEJ W., 	§
Petitioner, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:26-cv-158
§
WARDEN, EL VALLE 	§
DETENTION CENTER, et al., 	§
Respondents. 	§
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS
HABEAS PETITION SUBJECT TO REFILING
To have jurisdiction over this filing, this Court must determine if Kamil W. (“Next
Friend”) can act as Petitioner’s next friend.
On February 27, 2026, the Court ordered Petitioner and/or Next Friend to file a
statement with the Court to show cause to that effect. Dkt. No. 10. By their deadline, no
response had been filed to the Court, and no response has been submitted to the Court’s
order to show cause for failure to respond. Dkt. No. 15. Because there has not been an
adequate showing meeting the requirements for a next friend filing, it is recommended the
Court dismiss the case without prejudice as this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the next
friend petition.
The federal habeas statutes provide an exception to the general rule that individuals
who do not hold a law license may not represent other parties, known as “next friend”
status. 28 U.S.C. § 2242; Weber v. Garza, 570 F.2d 511, 513 (5th Cir. 1978). However,
“next friend” standing is not granted automatically. Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149,
163 (1990). To proceed and properly establish a recognizable “next friend,” Next Friend
must: (1) explain why Petitioner cannot prosecute this case independently at this time; (2)
establish that, as the “next friend,” he or she is truly dedicated to the best interests of
Petitioner; and (3) demonstrate a significant relationship to Petitioner. Whitmore, 496 U.S.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 22, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 1:26-cv-00158 Document 21 Filed 04/22/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3
149 at 163. It is Next Friend’s burden to establish “the propriety of her status and thereby
justify the jurisdiction of the court.” Id. at 164. If he or she fails to do so, this Court is
without jurisdiction, and the § 2241 Petition must be dismissed. Id.; see also Weber, F.2d
at 514 (explaining that “when 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.”);
Romanov v. Frink, No. H-25-3133, 2025 WL 2162290, at *3 (S.D. Tex. July 30, 2025) (J.
Lake). To succeed on a next friend application, “a ‘next friend’ must 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.” Whitmore,
496 U. S. 149 	at 163. “[T]hat explanation must be supported by relevant proof.” Soto v.
Sowell, No. CV H-25-1362, 2025 WL 2822000, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 3, 2025).
Next Friend fails to make an adequate showing. In fact, neither Next Friend nor
Petitioner has filed a statement responsive to either of this court’s orders. Because of that,
it is recommended that the Court DISMISS the Petition (Dkt. No. 1) for lack of jurisdiction
without prejudice to refiling and DENY as moot the “Motion to Expedite.” Dkt. No. 2.
The parties have fourteen (14) days from the date of being served with a copy of
this Report and Recommendation in which to file written objections, if any, with the United
States District Judge assigned to this case. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When filing an objection,
a party must object to specific facts or legal findings in this Report and Recommendation.
The District Judge is not required to consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections.
Battle v. United States Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987).
If any party fails to timely object to any factual or legal findings in this Report and
Recommendation, the District Judge is not required to conduct a de novo review of the
record before adopting these findings. If the District Judge chooses to adopt such findings
without conducting a de novo review of the record, the parties may not attack those findings
on appeal, except on the grounds of plain error. Alexander v. Verizon Wireless Servs.,
L.L.C., 875 F.3d 243, 248 (5th Cir. 2017).
Case 1:26-cv-00158 Document 21 Filed 04/22/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3
Signed on April 22, 2026.
__________________________
Karen Betancourt
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00158 Document 21 Filed 04/22/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3