Western District of Pennsylvania • 3:26-cv-00128

Jan 30, 2026

Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand added. (kss)

#1

Feb 02, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (for Clerk of Court personnel only)

#2

Feb 02, 2026

Miscellaneous Relief (Use ONLY if no other relief applies)

#3

Feb 03, 2026

ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 1 Petition for Habeas Corpus. Before the Court is a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, brought by Yasmin Darlene Ayala as "next friend" of Petitioner, David Israel Moreno Alvarez, an immigration detainee confined at the Moshannon Valley Processing Center in Philipsburg, Pennsylvania. ECF No. 1. Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, "[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition[.]" In other words, a district court is "authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on its face[.]" McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). On January 30, 2026, Ms. Ayala filed the Petition as Petitioner's "next friend." ECF No. 1. The Petition alleges that Petitioner is currently detained at Moshannon Valley Processing Center following his arrest by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") on January 14, 2026. ECF No. 1 at 9. The Petition alleges that Petitioner's detention violates the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Id. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be "signed and verified by the person for whose relief it is intended or by someone acting in his behalf." 28 U.S.C. § 2242. However, a person seeking to file a habeas petition on behalf of another person must meet "two firmly rooted prerequisites for 'next friend' standing." Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163 (1990). "First, a 'next friend' must provide an adequate explanationsuch as inaccessibility, mental incompetence, or other disabilitywhy the real party in interest cannot appear on his own behalf to prosecute the action." Id. "Second, the 'next friend' must be truly dedicated to the best interests of the person on whose behalf [s]he seeks to litigate[.]" Id. Furthermore, "it has been... suggested that a 'next friend' must have some significant relationship with the real party in interest." Id. at 16364. The next friend has the burden of showing these prerequisites are met. Id. at 164. Here, Ms. Ayala fails to establish either prerequisite for next friend standing. In her signed declaration, Ms. Ayala asserts that Petitioner cannot appear on his own behalf because of his ongoing detention at Moshannon Valley Processing Center. ECF No. 1-5 at 2. Ms. Ayala states that mail at the Moshannon Valley Processing Center is currently delivered through an electronic tablet system, and that Petitioner "has been denied access to a tablet... mak[ing] it impossible for him to receive, review, or sign legal paperwork." Id. However, "the fact of incarceration alone has never been a reason to appoint a next friend to initiate litigation on behalf of an inmate." Klingensmith by Klingensmith v. Pennsylvania, No. CV 25-1802, 2025 WL 3251199, at *1 n.3 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 21, 2025) (Horan, J.); see also Hall v. City of Detroit, No. 26-10023, 2026 WL 66889, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 8, 2026) ("The fact that [plaintiff] is incarcerated, with limited or no access to legal materials, does not suffice to establish next friend status."). Additionally, Ms. Ayala represents that she has "a close personal relationship" with Petitioner and is "acting solely in his best interests to seek his release[.]" ECF No. 1-5 at 2. The Court finds this threadbare assertion insufficient to establish the second prerequisite for next friend standing. Finally, the Court notes that Ms. Ayala does not indicate that she is an attorney or that she has retained counsel in this case. See generally ECF No. 1. Thus, even if Ms. Ayala had next friend standing, which she does not, the Court would still deny her request to bring the Petition on Petitioner's behalf. See Schlemmer v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 804 F. App'x 127, 128, n. 2 (3d Cir. May 13, 2020) ("A non-attorney cannot represent another party, even if acting as a next friend."); see also Bah v. Tsoukaris, No. CV 25-16925, 2025 WL 3041812, at *2 (D.N.J. Oct. 31, 2025) ("In other words, Petitioner can appear on his own behalf, with an attorney to represent him, or with a next friend who has retained an attorney.") (cleaned up). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is directed to mark this case CLOSED. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 2/3/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (bjw) (Entered: 02/03/2026)

Feb 03, 2026

Order Dismissing Case AND ~Util - Terminate Motions