Osuna v. Francis
Deglis Yohardis Salazar Osuna v. LaDeon Francis, Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, New York Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Todd Lyons, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Pamela Bondi, U.S. Attorney General; Executive Office for Immigration Review
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:25-cv-09823
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Salazar Osuna v. Francis, Judge Abrams ordered the Clerk to seek a volunteer lawyer for the detained petitioner.
Deglis Yohardis Salazar Osuna, whose ability to litigate is limited by incarceration, and the Clerk of Court, which must seek a volunteer attorney; volunteer representation is not guaranteed.
What happened
In Deglis Yohardis Salazar Osuna v. Francis, Jessica Walker filed a petition challenging Salazar Osuna’s detention on his behalf as his representative. The order concerns only whether the court should seek volunteer legal help.
The court found that the legal and jurisdictional issues were complex and that Salazar Osuna’s incarceration and the emergency nature of the petition limited his ability to investigate facts and present his case. The court therefore concluded that volunteer representation could help resolve the issues more quickly and fairly.
Judge Ronnie Abrams directed the Clerk of Court to try to find a volunteer lawyer for Salazar Osuna. The court explained that it cannot force a lawyer to accept the case, so representation is not guaranteed, and Salazar Osuna must be prepared to proceed without a lawyer if necessary.
The detailed version
- Osuna v. Francis · No. 1:25-cv-09823
- Ronnie Abrams
- Dec. 1, 2025
Background
On November 25, 2025, Jessica Walker filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on Deglis Yohardis Salazar Osuna’s behalf as his “next friend,” meaning a person filing for someone else. The opinion states that Salazar Osuna is incarcerated and that the location of his detention raised jurisdictional and other legal questions.
Reasoning
The court evaluated the factors used to decide whether to seek volunteer counsel, including the apparent strength of the claim, the need for factual investigation, the importance of credibility issues, the petitioner’s ability to present the case, and the complexity of the legal issues. The court found that these factors supported seeking counsel. It emphasized Salazar Osuna’s limited ability to present his case and investigate facts because of his incarceration and the emergency nature of the petition.
Ruling
Judge Ronnie Abrams directed the Clerk of Court to attempt to locate a volunteer attorney to represent Salazar Osuna. The court clarified that it does not have authority to appoint a lawyer involuntarily; it can only request that an attorney volunteer. The order therefore does not guarantee representation. If no attorney volunteers, Salazar Osuna must be prepared to proceed without counsel. The court also directed the Clerk to mail a copy of the order to him through his next friend. The order does not decide the merits of the detention challenge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.