Garcia v. Almodovar
Isaac Solano Garcia v. Judith Almodovar, in her official capacity as Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, New York City, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Kristi Noem, in her official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Pamela Bondi, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the United States; Executive Office for Immigration Review
- Vyskocil
- 1:25-cv-09571
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Isaac Solano Garcia v. Judith Almodovar, Judge Vyskocil dismissed the habeas petition without prejudice because its filing friend did not establish authority to act.
The dismissal affected Isaac Solano Garcia’s habeas petition and the attempt by Daisy Nava-Perez to file it on his behalf. The respondents were not required to litigate the petition on the merits in this order.
What happened
Isaac Solano Garcia v. Judith Almodovar concerned a petition asking a federal court to grant habeas relief under federal law. The petition was filed on Garcia’s behalf by Daisy Nava-Perez, identified as his “Friend.”
The court explained that a person filing as a “next friend” must show that she legally qualifies to do so and therefore has the right to bring the petition for someone else. Without an adequate explanation for using that procedure, the court lacks jurisdiction to consider the petition.
The court dismissed the petition without prejudice. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil issued the dismissal on November 19, 2025.
The detailed version
- Garcia v. Almodovar · No. 1:25-cv-09571
- Vyskocil
- Nov. 19, 2025
Background
Isaac Solano Garcia filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The petition was filed on his behalf by Daisy Nava-Perez, who was identified as Garcia’s “Friend.” The opinion also states that a declaration accompanying the petition was signed by an attorney who had not appeared in the case when the petition was filed.
Jurisdiction and “next friend” requirement
The court explained that a person who files a habeas petition as a “next friend”—someone seeking to act for another person—must establish that she legally qualifies for that role and therefore has standing, meaning the legal right to bring the petition on the other person’s behalf. The court further explained that when a next-friend filing does not provide an adequate reason or explanation for using that procedure, the federal court lacks jurisdiction to consider the petition.
Disposition
The court ordered that the petition be dismissed without prejudice. The opinion does not provide additional factual detail explaining why the filing did not satisfy the next-friend requirement. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil signed the order on November 19, 2025.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.