Ceballo Garcia et al v. Warden Diamondback Correctional Facility

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ORGREILY 	JOSEFINA 	CEBALLO
GARCIA,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN 	OF 	DIAMONDBACK
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
) 	Case No. CIV-26-710-PRW
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
Before the Court is Orgreily Josefina Ceballo Garcia’s Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus (Dkt. 1), filed on her behalf by Neymar Carolina Ceballo Fernandez as her next
friend. On April 23, 2026, Ms. Ceballo Fernandez filed a Next Friend Declaration in
Support of Habeas Corpus Petition (Dkt. 6). For the following reasons, the Court finds that
Ms. Ceballo Fernandez lacks standing to proceed in this Court as Petitioner’s next friend.
Background
Petitioner is a Cuban national who arrived in the United States on December 24,
2023.1 Ms. Ceballo Fernandez filed the Petition (Dkt. 1) on behalf of Petitioner following
her detention 	on February 25, 2026, arguing that her detention 	violates the Fifth
Amendment of the United States Constitution. Ms. Ceballo Fernandez does not state what
her relationship with the Petitioner is.2
1 Memo. (Dkt. 2), at 1.
2 See generally Decl. (Dkt. 6).
Case 5:26-cv-00710-PRW Document 7 Filed 04/29/26 Page 1 of 5

2
Legal Standard
Congress requires that every “[a]pplication for a writ of habeas corpus shall be in
writing signed and verified by the person for whose relief it is intended or by someone
acting in his behalf.”3 While a deeply-rooted basis for jurisdiction, generally next friends
appear in habeas proceedings on behalf of detainees who are unable to press their claims
themselves, often because of inaccessibility or mental incompetence.4 Indeed, next friends
are barred from pursuing habeas claims on behalf of detainees who themselves could file
their own petitions.5 Importantly, next friends in habeas proceedings are never parties to
the action—they only pursue the claims on behalf of the respective detainees.6 However,
“‘next friend’ standing is by no means granted automatically to whomever seeks to pursue
an action on behalf of another.”7 Such stinginess within the next friend doctrine is
motivated by a need to gatekeep “intruders or uninvited meddlers, styling themselves next
friends.”8 It is the burden of the prospective next friend to “clearly . . . establish the
propriety of [her next friend] status and thereby justify the jurisdiction of the court.”9
3 28 U.S.C. § 2242 (emphasis added).
4 Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 161–62 (1990) (citing United States ex rel. Toth v.
Quarles, 350 U.S. 11, 13 n. 3 (1955)).
5 Williams v. Boone, 166 F.3d 1223 (10th Cir. 1999) (unpublished) (citing Wilson v. Lane,
870 F.2d 1250, 1253 (7th Cir. 1989)).
6 Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 163 (citing Morgan v. Potter, 157 U.S. 195, 198 (1895)).
7 Id.
8 Id. at 164 (quoting United States ex rel. Bryant v. Houston, 273 F. 915, 916 (2nd Cir.
1921)).
9 Id. at 164 (citing Smith ex rel. Missouri Public Defender Comm’n v. Armontrout, 812 F.2d
1050, 1053 (8th Cir. 1987)).
Case 5:26-cv-00710-PRW Document 7 Filed 04/29/26 Page 2 of 5

3
To satisfy next friend standing, a prospective next friend must meet “two firmly
rooted prerequisites”: (1) She must provide “an adequate explanation” why Petitioner
cannot litigate her own case10 and (2) she must demonstrate she is “truly dedicated” to
Petitioner’s best interests.11
Analysis
Ms. Ceballo Fernandez does not provide an adequate explanation as to why
Petitioner cannot litigate her own case. She represents that Petitioner is unable to file a
Petition on her own behalf due to her “detention, lack of access to legal assistance, language
barriers, conditions of confinement, and other limitations.”12 None of these grounds,
independently or collectively, satisfy the first prong of the next friend test in this case.
To begin, Petitioner’s detention as a general matter cannot be used to satisfy the
“adequate explanation” requirement. Every habeas corpus action necessarily involves a
petitioner who is “in custody.”13 Thus, if detention alone was sufficient, then Whitmore’s
limitations on next-friend status would be rendered meaningless.
Ms. Ceballo Fernandez also represents that “language barriers” interfere with
Petitioner’s ability to represent herself. However, in Whitmore, the Court required a
potential next friend to show that the detainee cannot litigate his own case because of
10 Id. at 163 (citing Wilson, 870 F.2d at 1253).
11 Id. (citing Morris v. United States, 399 F. Supp. 720, 722 (E. D. Va. 1975)).
12 Decl. (Dkt. 6), at 1.
13 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2254.
Case 5:26-cv-00710-PRW Document 7 Filed 04/29/26 Page 3 of 5

4
“inaccessibility, mental incompetence, or other disability[.]”14 Inability to speak, read, or
write in English is not typically considered an incurable bar to participation in legal
proceedings. For instance, non-English-speaking criminal defendants participate in legal
proceedings with the aid of translation. Because lack of English proficiency is readily
curable through use of a translator, it is not the sort of uncurable disabilities or incapacity
that would warrant next friend standing, unless the prospective next friend establishes facts
demonstrating a lack of ability to cure the language deficiency (e.g., lack of access to
translation or native language legal materials). Here, Ms. Ceballo Fernandez only alleges
that some sort of language barrier exists. Without more information, a lack of English
proficiency cannot satisfy the first prong.
Similarly, 	Ms. 	Ceballo 	Fernandez 	“lack 	of 	access 	to 	legal 	assistance” 	and
“conditions of confinement” arguments also cannot serve as sufficient bases to establish an
adequate explanation. She does not elaborate on what these circumstances mean or how
they prevent Petitioner from representing herself.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Ms. Ceballo Fernandez has not provided an
adequate explanation as to why Petitioner is unable to litigate her own case. This is a
sufficient reason to find that Ms. Ceballo Fernandez lacks standing to bring Petitioner’s
claims. However, even if she satisfied the first prong of the next friend test, the Court would
also find that Ms. Ceballo Fernandez failed the second prong because she has not indicated
what her exact relationship with Petitioner is.
14 Id. at 163 (citing Wilson, 870 F.2d at 1253).
Case 5:26-cv-00710-PRW Document 7 Filed 04/29/26 Page 4 of 5

5
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Ms. Ceballo Fernandez has not met
her burden to prove she can serve as Petitioner’s next friend. The Court ORDERS
Petitioner Orgreily Josefina Ceballo Garcia to file an amended petition on or before May
29, 2026, signed and verified either (1) by Petitioner, should she wish to proceed pro se, or
(2) by a licensed attorney. Failure to timely file a proper petition will likely result in the
Court dismissing this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of April 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00710-PRW Document 7 Filed 04/29/26 Page 5 of 5