Cirilo Santiz Santiz filed the federal habeas petition on behalf of Joel Cruz Hernandez, who is currently detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement at California City Correctional Center in California City. Santiz Santiz, appearing pro se, sought next friend standing to challenge Hernandez's detention, claiming his longtime friend and employee 'is not in a position to protect his own rights or pursue this case without assistance' due to his detention and limited access to legal resources.
Judge Scott found that Santiz Santiz met both prerequisites for next friend standing under Supreme Court precedent, noting he had adequately explained why Hernandez 'cannot effectively represent himself' and demonstrated the required 'significant relationship with the real party in interest.' As Scott wrote, Santiz Santiz's representations that he has known Hernandez 'for a long time through work and [has] had the opportunity to observe his character and conduct closely' as his friend and employee satisfied the second Whitmore prerequisite.
However, the court emphasized that while Santiz Santiz qualified for next friend status, he could not proceed pro se on another's behalf. 'Although the federal habeas corpus statute permits a 'next friend' to pursue a habeas action on behalf of another in certain circumstances, the statute does not authorize the 'next friend' to proceed without an attorney,' Scott wrote, citing Ninth Circuit precedent that 'a non-lawyer has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself.'
The case arose when Santiz Santiz filed the habeas petition on April 3, 2026, along with requests for expedited consideration and a temporary restraining order. The petition names ICE San Francisco Field Office Director Tae D. Johnson and the unnamed warden of California City Correctional Center as respondents. Santiz Santiz had also filed a separate motion seeking appointment of counsel for Hernandez.
Santiz Santiz argued for expedited consideration of the petition, but the court rejected that request. Scott found that 'the Court currently does not have before it sufficient information to assess the merits of the petition or the propriety of granting injunctive relief to warrant expedited consideration of his request for immediate release from ICE custody.' The motion for expedited briefing was denied accordingly.
The court's decision to appoint counsel was driven by due process concerns raised in the petition. Scott noted that Santiz Santiz's filing 'raises due process concerns regarding Petitioner's detention based on his allegations he remains detained without a meaningful opportunity to challenge his detention or the validity of his proceedings.' While there is no constitutional right to counsel in federal habeas proceedings, the Criminal Justice Act authorizes appointment when 'the interest of justice so require.'
The court ordered the Federal Defender to identify counsel within seven days and provide contact information to the court's deputy. If the appointed counsel is not with the Federal Defender or a member of the Eastern District's Criminal Justice Act Panel, the Federal Defender must file a motion to appoint counsel pro hac vice under the CJA.
The ruling represents a recognition that detained immigrants facing removal proceedings may require next friend representation when they lack meaningful access to legal resources. The court will separately address Santiz Santiz's motion for a temporary restraining order following the appointment of counsel.