Reported / Citable
Background
Halim Yusif, a Ghanaian national held at the Torrance County Detention Center in Estancia, New Mexico, sought relief through a petition for habeas corpus. Because Mr. Yusif is unable to read or complete English-language forms without assistance, his wife, Esther Bortey — who is not an attorney — attempted to file the petition on his behalf as his “next friend” under 28 U.S.C. § 2242. The court had previously ordered Ms. Bortey to submit supplemental information establishing that she met the legal requirements to serve in that role.
The case presented two distinct questions: first, whether Ms. Bortey had standing to act as Mr. Yusif’s next friend under the two-part test set forth in Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (1990); and second, whether a non-attorney next friend may litigate a federal habeas proceeding without being represented by licensed counsel.
The Court’s Holding
Senior U.S. District Judge David C. Guaderrama held that Ms. Bortey satisfied both prongs of the Whitmore test and therefore has standing to seek habeas relief on Mr. Yusif’s behalf. On the first prong, the court found that Mr. Yusif’s inability to read or complete English-language forms — combined with the Fifth Circuit’s recognition that such inability is a proper basis for next-friend standing — adequately explained why he could not prosecute the action himself. On the second prong, the court found that Ms. Bortey’s status as Mr. Yusif’s spouse, supported by a marriage certificate and her declaration of no adverse interests, established the required “significant relationship.”
However, the court held that Ms. Bortey’s next-friend standing does not entitle her to litigate the case pro se. Joining the majority of federal courts that have addressed the issue, Judge Guaderrama concluded that 28 U.S.C. § 1654 and the weight of circuit authority bar non-attorneys from representing another party in federal habeas proceedings without counsel. Although § 2242 permits a next friend to sign, verify, and file a habeas petition, it does not authorize a non-attorney to conduct the litigation on the detainee’s behalf. The court conditionally recognized Ms. Bortey as next friend and ordered her to retain licensed counsel by July 10, 2026, or face dismissal without prejudice.
Key Takeaways
- Under Whitmore v. Arkansas, a spouse satisfies next-friend standing when the detainee’s language barriers prevent self-representation and the spouse demonstrates no adverse interest — a marriage certificate alone can carry the “significant relationship” prong.
- Next-friend standing under 28 U.S.C. § 2242 permits a non-attorney to sign, verify, and file a habeas petition, but does not authorize that person to conduct the litigation pro se; counsel must be obtained before the case can move forward.
- The court left an escape valve: if Mr. Yusif’s circumstances change so that he can proceed on his own, he may file notice and litigate pro se himself.
- The court substituted current officeholders — Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and ICE Acting Director David A. Venturella — for their predecessors as respondents under Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).
Why It Matters
This decision joins a growing wave of 2026 district court rulings — from New Jersey to California to Michigan — that have grappled with the same procedural question as immigration enforcement has placed large numbers of non-English-speaking detainees in facilities with limited access to legal resources. The ruling clarifies the boundary between the narrow § 2242 exception that allows next friends to initiate habeas petitions and the general prohibition on non-attorney representation in federal court, providing a clear framework that other courts in the Western District of Texas and beyond may follow.
Practically, the decision underscores the importance of the Criminal Justice Act appointment mechanism: the court explicitly pointed Ms. Bortey to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B), which allows appointment of counsel in habeas cases where the interests of justice require it and the petitioner is financially eligible. For immigration advocates, the ruling is both a road map and a warning — family members can open the courthouse door for a detained relative, but they must hand the case off to a licensed attorney to get it across the threshold.