Herrera v. Francis
- Rearden
- 1:25-cv-08602
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Fuentes DeLuque v. Francis: Judge Rearden directed the clerk to seek volunteer counsel for the unrepresented petitioner challenging his detention.
Jhoan Maza Herrera, who remained without counsel in this proceeding, and the respondents in his detention challenge. The order also directed the Clerk of Court to seek a volunteer lawyer.
What happened
In Kati Andrea Fuentes DeLuque ex rel. Jhoan Maza Herrera v. LaDeon Francis, et al., Jhoan Maza Herrera challenged his detention under federal law through Kati Andrea Fuentes DeLuque, who acted on his behalf. He was represented in his immigration case but remained without a lawyer in this proceeding.
The court found that volunteer representation was appropriate because Herrera’s detention and the emergency nature of his petition limited his ability to investigate facts and present his case. The court also said the petition raised questions in a rapidly developing area of law.
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden directed the clerk to try to find a volunteer lawyer, while explaining that the court could request—but not require—an attorney to serve. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal from this order because it certified that such an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Herrera v. Francis · No. 1:25-cv-08602
- Rearden
- Nov. 24, 2025
Background
On October 17, 2025, Jhoan Maza Herrera filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a procedure used to challenge federal detention, through Kati Andrea Fuentes DeLuque, identified as his next friend. The petition stated that Herrera was being held at 26 Federal Plaza in New York, New York, when it was filed. The court ordered the respondents to respond, received their papers and Herrera’s reply, and scheduled a hearing. The hearing was later rescheduled because a hearing in Herrera’s immigration case had been continued. The court understood that Herrera had counsel in his immigration case but remained unrepresented in this proceeding.
Reasoning
The court considered the factors used in the Second Circuit to evaluate requests for volunteer legal representation. These factors include whether the claim appears substantial, whether factual investigation is needed and is difficult for the party, whether credibility issues may require a lawyer’s skills, the party’s ability to present the case, and the complexity of the legal issues.
The court concluded that these factors favored seeking volunteer counsel. It found that Herrera’s incarceration and the emergency nature of the petition significantly limited his ability to present his case and conduct related fact investigation. The court also found that the petition raised questions in a rapidly developing area of law and that representation could help produce a quicker and fairer result by clarifying the issues.
Order
The court directed the Clerk of Court to attempt to locate a volunteer lawyer to represent Herrera. It emphasized that the court does not have authority to appoint a lawyer in these circumstances; it can only request that an attorney volunteer. The court also explained that there was no guarantee that a lawyer would accept the case or that another lawyer could be found if a volunteer’s services were declined. Herrera was required to notify the court by November 25, 2025, if he had already retained counsel or did not want the court to seek a volunteer.
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden additionally certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The order sought counsel for the ongoing proceeding; it did not decide the merits of the detention challenge.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.