Torres v. Francis
Liliana Del Cisne Rueda Torres v. LaDeon Francis, in his official capacity as Acting Field Office Director of New York Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al.
- Ho
- 1:25-cv-08408
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Liliana Del Cisne Rueda Torres v. LaDeon Francis, Judge Ho directed the clerk to seek volunteer counsel for Torres in her habeas petition.
Liliana Del Cisne Rueda Torres, an incarcerated petitioner proceeding without counsel, and the volunteer-counsel program directed to seek a lawyer for her.
What happened
Liliana Del Cisne Rueda Torres filed a petition challenging her immigration detention while she was in the Southern District of New York. She filed through her next friend, Fabian Arias, and the Government later told the court that she had been transferred to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement processing center in Louisiana.
The court found that the relevant factors favored seeking a volunteer lawyer because Torres’s incarceration and the emergency nature of her petition limited her ability to investigate facts and present her case. The order did not decide whether her petition should be granted.
Judge Ho directed the clerk to try to find pro bono counsel, meaning a lawyer who volunteers without charging Torres. The court did not appoint a lawyer and warned that no volunteer might accept the case; it also denied fee-waiver status for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Torres v. Francis · No. 1:25-cv-08408
- Ho
- Oct. 22, 2025
Background
Liliana Del Cisne Rueda Torres filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal statute allowing a person to challenge certain detention or custody, on October 9, 2025. She filed through her next friend, Fabian Arias, while she was present in the Southern District of New York. The Government later informed the court that Torres had been transferred on October 10, 2025, to the South Louisiana Immigration and Customs Enforcement Processing Center in Basile, Louisiana, where she remained.
The court had directed the Government to explain why the petition should not be granted and later directed Torres to file a reply brief by December 22, 2025. This order addressed representation, not the merits of the habeas petition.
Counsel analysis
The court considered the factors used to decide whether to seek volunteer counsel for an unrepresented litigant. Those factors include the likely strength of the claim, the need for factual investigation, whether credibility issues may require a trained advocate, the party’s ability to present the case, and the complexity of the legal issues.
The court found that the factors favored seeking pro bono counsel. It specifically stated that Torres’s incarceration and the emergency nature of her petition significantly limited her ability to investigate facts and present her case. The court concluded that representation could produce a quicker and fairer result by clarifying the issues.
Disposition
Judge Dale E. Ho directed the Clerk of Court to attempt to locate a volunteer lawyer to represent Torres. The court explained that it could request, but not appoint, a lawyer to volunteer. It also stated that there was no guarantee that a lawyer would accept the case or that another lawyer would be found if a volunteer declined. Torres was therefore told to be prepared to continue without counsel. The court said that deadlines might be shortened if she obtained a lawyer.
The court also certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal. The order did not grant or deny the habeas petition and did not resolve the underlying detention claim.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.