Western District of Pennsylvania • 3:26-cv-00402

#1

Mar 09, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing fee $5, receipt number 300000948), filed by YOHAN ESTIH BELTRAN PENAGOS. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet, # 3 Declaration, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Receipt, # 7 Envelope) (rjr) (Entered: 03/10/2026)

#2

Mar 09, 2026

MOTION to Expedite Bond Hearing, MOTION for Immediate Release by YOHAN ESTIH BELTRAN PENAGOS. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (rjr) (Entered: 03/10/2026)

Mar 09, 2026

Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand added. (rjr)

#3

Mar 11, 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 Liza Maria Ramirez Lucumi as "next friend" of Petitioner, Yohan Estih Beltran Penagos, 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). 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 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." 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. Ramirez Lucumi fails to establish either prerequisite for next friend standing. In her signed declaration, Ms. Ramirez Lucumi asserts that Petitioner is unable to sign this petition personally due to his restricted confinement at Moshannon Valley Processing Center. ECF No. 1 at 17. 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. Ramirez Lucumi does not provide any information regarding "a close personal relationship" with Petitioner. Finally, the Court notes that Ms. Ramirez Lucumi 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. Ramirez Lucumi 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. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the 2 Motion to Expedite Bond Hearing is DENIED as moot in light of the Court's ruling regarding next friend status. The Clerk of Court is directed to mark this case CLOSED. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 3/11/2026. 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: 03/11/2026)

Mar 11, 2026

Order Dismissing Case AND ~Util - Terminate Motions