Miller Leon v. United States of Homeland Security et al

- 1 - 26cv0200
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ALLAN EDGAR MILLER LEON,
through “next friend” Loren Junieth
Maynar Doña,
Petitioner,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No. 26-cv-00200-BAS-MMP
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Loren Junieth Maynar Doña brings this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against
the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), ostensibly as a “next friend” of Allan
Edgar Miller Leon. The Petition includes claims of warrantless arrest, prolonged detention
without due process, denial of medical care resulting in deliberate indifference, and
unconstitutional conditions of confinement. (ECF No. 1.) Many of these claims are not
appropriate for a habeas petition. 	See Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991)
(“Habeas corpus proceedings are the proper mechanism for a prisoner to challenge the
Case 3:26-cv-00200-BAS-MMP Document 4 Filed 01/14/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

- 2 - 26cv0200
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
‘legality or duration’ of confinement. A civil rights action, in contrast, is the proper method
of challenging ‘conditions of confinement.’” (citation modified)).
More problematic, however, is the claim that the Petition is being brought as a “next
friend” of the Petitioner and is not signed by the Petitioner. “‘Next friends’ appear in court
on behalf of detained prisoners who are unable, usually because of mental incompetence
or inaccessibility, to seek relief themselves.” 	Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 162
(1990). “‘[N]ext friend’ standing is by no means granted automatically to whomever seeks
to pursue an action on behalf of another.” 	Id. at 163. 	There are two prerequisites for
claiming 	“next 	friend” 	status. 	“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. (citations
omitted). Second, the “next friend” “must have some significant relationship with the real
party in interest.” 	Id. at 164. “The burden is on the ‘next friend’ clearly to establish the
propriety of his status and thereby justify the jurisdiction of the court.” Id.
In this case, Loren Junieth Maynar Doña fails to meet either prerequisite. There is
no explanation as to why Mr. Miller Leon cannot file on his own behalf. And there is no
explanation in the Petition as to what Mr. Miller Leon’s relationship is with the proposed
“next friend.”1
In addition, even if permitting a “next friend” is appropriate in this case, the “next
friend” cannot proceed pro se—without a lawyer. 	See, e.g., Pinzon v. Mendocino Cnty.
Sheriff’s Off., No. 22-CV-02388-RMI, 2022 WL 1304093, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2022).
Pro se status is only allowed when persons are appearing on their own behalf, not on behalf
of others. 	See Civil Local Rule 83.11. Therefore, if Loren Junieth Maynar Doña wishes
to proceed and satisfies the “next friend” prerequisites, then an attorney must also appear
1 	Separately, the Motion for Immediate Release (ECF No. 2) claims that Doña is Leon’s “life
partner.” 	However, that does not resolve the issue of why Leon is not filing on his own. 	Nor does it
remedy the lack of an attorney for Doña to appear on Leon’s behalf.
Case 3:26-cv-00200-BAS-MMP Document 4 Filed 01/14/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

- 3 - 26cv0200
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
on Doña’s behalf. Alternatively, Mr. Miller Leon can file his own Petition and appear pro
se on his own behalf.
In light of the foregoing, the Court finds summary dismissal is appropriate. Hence
the 	Court 	DISMISSES 	WITHOUT 	PREJUDICE 	the 	Petition. 	(ECF 	No. 	1.)
Accordingly, the Court also TERMINATES AS MOOT the motion for immediate
release. (ECF No. 2.)
Finally, the Clerk of Court shall close the case. 	In the event that an Amended
Petition is filed that corrects the deficiencies identified above, the Court will reopen the
case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 14, 2026 Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Case 3:26-cv-00200-BAS-MMP Document 4 Filed 01/14/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3