Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
ROGELIO BOLUFE IZQUIERDO,
Petitioner,
v. 	No. 25-cv-01304-JB-SCY
MELISSA ORTIZ, et al,
Respondents.
ORDER TO ANSWER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Rogelio Bolufe Izquierdo’s pro se 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 Habeas Petition. Doc. 1, supplemented by Doc. 2 (“Petition”). Also before the Court are
Petitioner’s motions seeking an expedited review of the claims; leave to file documents via
CM/ECF; and permission to proceed with the help of a next friend. See Docs. 3, 6. In this case,
Petitioner challenges his continued immigration detention on the ground that he has not received
a bond hearing.
Having reviewed the record, the Court finds that Respondents must answer the Petition.
The Court will grant the Emergency Motion for Expedited Review (Doc. 3), in part, by setting an
expedited briefing schedule. The Clerk’s Office shall email a copy of the Petition (Doc. 1,
supplemented by Doc. 2) to Roberto Ortega, the Civil Chief at the United States Attorney’s
Office (USAO), and Ryan Posey, who handles most § 2241 petitions for that office. The USAO
must answer the pro se Petition (Doc. 1, supplemented by Doc. 2) within seven (7) days of entry
of this Order. See Habeas Rules 1(b), 4 (courts have discretion to set a time for respondents to
answer a habeas petition). Petitioner may file an optional reply within seven (7) days after the
answer brief is filed.
Case 1:25-cv-01304-JB-SCY Document 8 Filed 01/06/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Petitioner’s remaining motion (Doc. 6) addresses two topics. First, Haymel de la Vega
seeks permission to appear as Petitioner’s next friend. See Doc. 6 at 3. Petitioner signed his own
opening Petition and the supporting brief. See Doc. 1 at 10; Doc. 2 at 16. The next friend issue
will therefore not impact the controlling pleadings, but it appears Haymel de la Vega wishes to
assist Petitioner going forward. “Next friends” may prosecute a habeas proceeding “on behalf of
detained prisoners who are unable . . . to seek relief themselves.” Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495
U.S. 149, 162 (1990); see also Advisory Committee Note to Habeas Corpus Rule 2(c)(5) (“The
Committee envisions that the courts would apply [the] . . . ‘next friend’ standing analysis [set
forth in Whitmore] in deciding whether the signer was actually authorized to sign the motion on
behalf of the movant.”). To obtain this status, the putative next friend: (1) “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;” and (2) “must
be truly dedicated to the best interests of the person on whose behalf he seeks to litigate.”
Whitmore, 495 U.S. 149 at 163. The putative next friend must also generally “some significant
relationship with the real party in interest.” Id.
Haymel de la Vega explains that Petitioner is detained and faces significant limitations on
his ability to litigate this matter, including restricted access to legal materials, mail, and
communication. See Doc. 6 at 3. Haymel de la Vega also attests he has a significant relationship
with Petitioner and is acting in good faith and in Petitioner’s best interests. In an earlier signed
filing, Petitioner states he experiences “excessive sedation through 18+ mediations daily;” he has
been denied access to attorneys and legal materials; and he is not receiving necessary translations
in the detention facility. See Doc. 3 at 2. On this record, and because Petitioner personally signed
Case 1:25-cv-01304-JB-SCY Document 8 Filed 01/06/26 Page 2 of 4

3
the controlling pleadings in this case, the Court will grant Haymel de la Vega’s request, in part.
Haymel de la Vega may assist Petitioner in the prosecution of this case, including obtaining and
translating documents; filing procedural motions/responses for Petitioner; and attending hearings
alongside Petitioner. However, Petitioner must still appear for hearings even if Haymel de la
Vega is attending. The Clerk’s Office will mail Haymel de la Vega a copy of this Order. Within
ten (10) days of entry of this Order, Haymel de la Vega shall provide an email address to the
Clerk’s Office so that he can obtain electronic copies of documents in this case.
Next, the motion seeks permission for Haymel de la Vega to file documents via CM/ECF.
The Court grants Petitioner, through his next friend, permission to file electronically in this case
only. See Guide for Pro Se Litigants at 13, District of New Mexico (October 2022) (“approval to
electronically file documents within a case must be granted by the presiding judge for each case
in which the pro se litigant wishes to file using their CM/ECF account”). This Order only grants
Petitioner permission to participate in CM/ECF; Petitioner or his next friend is responsible for
registering to become a participant. See CM/ECF Administrative Procedures Manual, District of
New Mexico (Revised June 2024). The Court will revoke permission to file electronically if
Petitioner abuses his electronic filing privilege or fails to comply with the rules and procedures
in the District of New Mexico’s Guide for Pro Se Litigants and the District of New Mexico’s
CM/ECF Administrative Procedures Manual. Account registration forms, procedure manuals,
and other information can be obtained at the Court’s website at
http://www.nmd.uscourts.gov/filing-information.
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Emergency Motion for Expedited Review (Doc. 3) is
GRANTED, in part, to the extent Petitioner seeks an expedited briefing schedule; and
Case 1:25-cv-01304-JB-SCY Document 8 Filed 01/06/26 Page 3 of 4

4
Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to File Documents Electronically and to Allow a Next Friend
(Doc. 6) is GRANTED. The Clerk’s Office will mail Haymel de la Vega a copy of this Order to
the following address:
Haymel de la Vega
5085 NW 7th St., Apt 402
Miami, FL 33126
Within ten (10) days of entry of this Order, Haymel de la Vega shall provide an email address to
the Clerk’s Office so that he can obtain electronic copies of documents in this case
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk’s Office shall forward a copy of the
Petition (Doc. 1, supplemented by Doc. 2) and this Order to the United States Attorney’s Office
at the following email addresses: roberto.ortega@usdoj.gov (Roberto Ortega, USAO Civil
Chief) and ryan.posey@usdoj.gov (Ryan Posey, AUSA).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the USAO must answer the Petition within seven (7)
days of entry of this Order; and if Petitioner wishes to file an optional reply, he must do so within
seven (7) days after the response is filed.
SO ORDERED.
_____________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-01304-JB-SCY Document 8 Filed 01/06/26 Page 4 of 4