Esperanza v. Francis
Oscar Arnoldo Rivera Esperanza v. Ladeon Francis, in his official capacity as Acting Field Office Director of New York Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Kristi Noem in her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security; Pam Bondi in her official capacity as Attorney General
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:25-cv-08727
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Oscar Arnoldo Rivera Esperanza v. Francis, Judge Abrams directed the clerk to seek volunteer pro bono counsel for Rivera Esperanza in his habeas case.
Oscar Arnoldo Rivera Esperanza, whose sister filed the detention-related petition on his behalf, and any volunteer attorney the clerk may locate to represent him.
What happened
In Oscar Arnoldo Rivera Esperanza v. Francis, Rivera Esperanza’s sister filed a petition for him seeking a court review of his detention. The court considered whether he needed help presenting the case while incarcerated and facing an emergency petition.
The court found that the relevant factors favored seeking volunteer legal counsel. It directed the clerk to try to find a lawyer willing to represent Rivera Esperanza without charge, but explained that no lawyer was guaranteed to take the case.
Judge Abrams also stated that Rivera Esperanza should be prepared to continue without a lawyer and directed the clerk to mail him the order through his sister. The order did not decide the petition’s underlying legal questions.
The detailed version
- Esperanza v. Francis · No. 1:25-cv-08727
- Ronnie Abrams
- Oct. 23, 2025
Background
On October 21, 2025, Oscar Arnoldo Rivera Esperanza’s sister, Yosselin Liliana Rivera Esperanza, filed a petition seeking a court review of his detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on his behalf as his “next friend.” The opinion states that Rivera Esperanza was incarcerated and that the petition was presented as an emergency matter.
Counsel request
The court evaluated the factors used to decide whether to seek volunteer pro bono counsel, including the apparent strength of the claim, the difficulty of investigating facts, credibility issues, the person’s ability to present the case, and the complexity of the legal issues. The court found that these factors favored seeking counsel. It specifically noted that the petition raised complex jurisdictional and other legal questions and that Rivera Esperanza’s incarceration and the emergency nature of the petition significantly limited his ability to present the case and investigate facts.
Ruling
The court directed the Clerk of Court to attempt to locate a volunteer attorney to represent Rivera Esperanza without charge. The court explained that it could request, but could not guarantee, that an attorney volunteer to represent him. It also instructed Rivera Esperanza to be prepared to proceed without a lawyer and to notify the court if he had already obtained counsel or did not want the court to seek volunteers. The clerk was directed to send a copy of the order to Rivera Esperanza through his next friend. The court did not rule on the merits of the detention petition.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.