Segundo v. Francis
Jose Luis Alejandro Segundo v. Ladeon Francis, in his capacity as Acting Field Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Todd Lyons, in his capacity as Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Markwayne Mullins in his capacity as, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:26-cv-05927
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Jose Luis Alejandro Segundo v. Francis, Judge Abrams directed the Clerk to seek volunteer pro bono counsel for the petitioner.
Jose Luis Alejandro Segundo is affected because the court will try to find a volunteer attorney, but he must be prepared to proceed without counsel if no attorney accepts the case. Modesto J. Alejandro is to receive a copy as the petitioner’s next friend.
What happened
Jose Luis Alejandro Segundo v. Francis concerns a petition for a court order challenging detention, filed on the petitioner's behalf by Modesto J. Alejandro as his “next friend.”
The court found that the petitioner’s lack of legal training, incarceration, and the emergency nature of the petition made it appropriate to seek volunteer legal representation. The court did not decide whether the petition was legally valid.
Judge Abrams directed the Clerk to try to locate a volunteer attorney, while explaining that the court cannot require an attorney to accept the case. The petitioner must be prepared to continue without a lawyer if no attorney volunteers.
The detailed version
- Segundo v. Francis · No. 1:26-cv-05927
- Ronnie Abrams
- July 20, 2026
Background
On July 13, 2026, Modesto J. Alejandro filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on Petitioner Jose Luis Alejandro Segundo’s behalf as his “next friend.” The opinion does not decide the petition’s underlying claims.
Reasoning
The court considered factors used to evaluate requests for volunteer counsel, including whether the claim appears to have substantial merit, whether factual investigation is needed, whether credibility issues are involved, the party’s ability to present the case, and the complexity of the legal issues. The court found that these factors favored seeking volunteer counsel because Petitioner’s lack of legal training, incarceration, and the emergency nature of the petition significantly limited his ability to present the case and investigate related facts.
The court explained that it does not have authority to force an attorney to represent a litigant. It may only ask an attorney to volunteer. There is no guarantee that an attorney will accept the case or that another attorney will be found if the first effort fails. Petitioner was therefore told to be prepared to proceed without a lawyer. The opinion also states that Petitioner may notify the court if he has already obtained counsel or does not want the court to seek a volunteer.
Ruling
Judge Ronnie Abrams directed the Clerk of Court to attempt to locate volunteer counsel to represent Petitioner. The Clerk was also directed to mail the order to Petitioner and email a copy to his next friend. The order did not resolve the merits of the petition.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.