Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Pavel Ibarra Gamboa is an immigration detainee at the Otay Mesa Detention Center. A federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 was filed in his name, along with a request to proceed without paying the filing fee (“in forma pauperis” or IFP). Both documents were signed not by Ibarra Gamboa himself but by his long-term partner, Osleidy Ofarrill Fuentes, identifying herself as his “next friend.”
The federal habeas statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2242, allows a habeas petition to be signed by “someone acting in [the petitioner’s] behalf.” Federal courts permit this in narrow circumstances under what is called “next friend” standing — typically when the detained person is mentally incompetent, inaccessible, or otherwise unable to file on his own behalf. The Supreme Court’s Whitmore v. Arkansas decision sets out the test.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the IFP motion and dismissed the case without prejudice. The court did not need to decide whether the long-term partner had a sufficient basis under Whitmore to serve as next friend, because she ran into a separate insurmountable problem: she was not an attorney and was acting on her own.
Ninth Circuit and California district court precedent uniformly holds that pro se litigants — that is, people representing themselves without a lawyer — cannot represent anyone else, including in a next-friend capacity. The federal habeas statute permits a next friend to bring an action on behalf of a detainee, but it does not authorize that next friend to do so without a lawyer. The Southern District of California’s local rules also expressly require self-represented litigants to appear personally and prohibit them from delegating that duty to anyone else, including a spouse or another party.
Because Fuentes was not an attorney and could not represent Ibarra Gamboa pro se, the petition was procedurally improper. The court dismissed the case without prejudice, gave Ibarra Gamboa until March 16, 2026 to refile by either personally signing the IFP request and an amended petition or by having a licensed attorney sign on his behalf, and directed the clerk to attach blank IFP and § 2241 forms to the order.
Key Takeaways
- Family members and partners of immigration detainees cannot file habeas petitions on behalf of the detainee while appearing without a lawyer. The federal habeas statute permits next-friend standing, but the next friend must either be the detainee herself or be represented by counsel.
- The two issues — whether next-friend standing exists under Whitmore and whether the next friend may proceed pro se — are independent. Even a clearly qualified next friend (e.g., a parent of an incompetent person) cannot represent the petitioner without a licensed attorney.
- Southern District of California Local Rule 83.11(a) bars self-represented litigants from delegating their court appearance to any other person — including a spouse or fellow party.
- Detainees who lack access to counsel can sign the petition themselves (with help in completing the form) and submit it; the court will provide blank forms when needed.
Why It Matters
Family members, friends, and advocacy groups often help detained immigrants prepare and file emergency habeas petitions. This decision is a useful reminder that procedural shortcuts can derail otherwise meritorious challenges to detention. Petitions signed by a non-attorney “next friend” will be dismissed without ever reaching the merits.
For California immigration detainees and their supporters, the practical workaround is straightforward: arrange for the detainee himself to sign the petition (with assistance in completing the forms), or arrange for a licensed attorney to sign as next friend. Pro bono and low-cost legal-services organizations in the San Diego region routinely assist with this kind of filing. Procedural compliance now will avoid a dismissal that wastes time the detainee may not have.