Valerio v. Joyce
Andres Valerio v. William Joyce, in his official capacity as District Director of New York, Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:25-cv-08714
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Valerio v. Joyce, Judge Abrams directed the clerk to seek volunteer counsel for Valerio in his habeas case.
Andres Valerio, whose child filed the petition on his behalf, and the Clerk of Court, which must try to locate a volunteer lawyer. Any lawyer who volunteers would be affected by the request to represent Valerio.
What happened
In Valerio v. Joyce, Andres Valerio’s child filed a petition seeking a court order concerning Valerio’s detention under a federal law that allows challenges to detention. The child filed it on Valerio’s behalf as his representative, called a “next friend.”
The court found that the case raised complex legal and jurisdictional questions and that Valerio’s incarceration and the emergency nature of the petition limited his ability to investigate and present the case. It directed the clerk to try to find a volunteer lawyer to represent him.
Judge Ronnie Abrams emphasized that the court can request, but cannot require, a lawyer to volunteer, so representation was not guaranteed. The order did not decide the underlying petition and stated that Valerio should be prepared to proceed without a lawyer.
The detailed version
- Valerio v. Joyce · No. 1:25-cv-08714
- Ronnie Abrams
- Oct. 23, 2025
Background
On October 21, 2025, Andres Valerio’s child, Armando Valerio, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on Valerio’s behalf as his “next friend,” meaning a person filing for someone who is unable to pursue the matter personally. The opinion identifies William Joyce as the respondent in his official capacity as District Director of New York, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Counsel Request
The court considered the factors governing requests for volunteer legal representation, including whether the claim appeared to have substantial merit, whether investigating the facts would be difficult, whether credibility issues required legal skills, the petitioner’s ability to present the case, and the complexity of the legal issues. The court found that these factors favored seeking pro bono counsel, meaning a lawyer who volunteers to represent a person without charging a fee.
The court specifically stated that the petition presented complex jurisdictional and other legal questions. It also found that Valerio’s incarceration and the emergency nature of the petition significantly limited his ability to present the case and conduct related factual investigation.
Ruling
Judge Ronnie Abrams directed the Clerk of Court to attempt to locate a volunteer lawyer to represent Valerio. The court explained that it does not have authority to appoint counsel and may only request that an attorney volunteer, so no lawyer was guaranteed to take the case. The court stated that Valerio should be prepared to proceed without a lawyer and directed the Clerk to mail him a copy of the order through his next friend. The order did not rule on the substance of the habeas petition.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.