govinfo:USCOURTS-okwd-5_26-cv-00755-1

1 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 
 
ADELAIDA JASMINE GARIBO, 
as Next Friend of JOSE MANUEL 
GARIBO GONZALEZ, 
 
Petitioner, 
 
v. 
 
TODD BLANCHE, et al., 
 
Respondents. 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
Case No. CIV-26-755-D 
ORDER 
 Jose Manuel Garibo Gonzal ez is the named petitioner in a Petition for Writ Habeas 
Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. No. 1]. However, the Petition was not signed by 
Petitioner and was submitted by his wi fe, Adelaida Jasmine Garibo. Id. The matter was 
referred to United States Magistrate Judge Amanda Leigh Maxfield for initial proceedings 
in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). [Doc. No. 6]. 
 On April 20, 2026, Judge Maxfield conc luded that Petitioner had not signed the 
Petition and that Ms. Garibo had not shown she was authorized to litigate on his behalf via 
next friend status. [Doc. No. 7]. Judge Maxfie ld directed Petitioner to file a signed and 
verified version of the original petition or file a signed and verified amended petition on or 
before May 11, 2026. Id. at p. 4. In the alternative, Judge Maxfield concluded that the case 
could also proceed if Ms. Garibo provided additional argument and evidence that was 
sufficient to support a finding of her next friend status. Id. at p. 5. Judge Maxfield warned 

2 
 
that “[f]ailure to comply with this Order may result in the dismissal of this action.” Id. at 
p. 4. 
 To date, Petitioner has not filed a verified original petition or an amended petition. 
On May 15, 2026, Judge Maxfie ld issued a Report and R ecommendation (“Report”), in 
which she recommends that the Court dismiss without prejudice Petitioner’s habeas action 
for failure to comply with he r April 20, 2026 Order. [Doc. No. 10]. In the Report, Judge 
Maxfield notified Petitioner of his right to file an objection to the Report on or before June 
5, 2026, and that failure to object waives his right to appellate review of both factual and 
legal issues contained in the Report. See Moore v. United States. 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th 
Cir. 1991). 
 On June 1, 2026, Ms. Garibo filed a su pplemental paper allegedly supporting her 
claim to be able to litigate this matter on behalf of Petitioner as next friend. [Doc. No. 11]. 
The supplemental filing contained, in relevant part, evidence of Ms. Garibo and Petitioner’s 
marriage, records from Petitioner’s immigrati on proceedings, banking statements, and a 
verified declaration from Petitioner in which he requests that this matter not be dismissed 
and that Ms. Garibo be permitted to act as hi s next friend, because his detention makes it 
difficult to proceed pro se. Id. 
The Court construes Ms. Garibo’s supplement as an objection to Judge Maxfield’s 
finding that Ms. Garibo did not establish the criteria for next friend status to act on behalf 
of Petitioner. Thus, the Court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the 
report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made” and 

3 
 
“may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made 
by the magistrate judge.” See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). 
DISCUSSION 
The Court agrees with Judge Maxfield’s conclusion that Ms. Garibo has not 
established the stringent criteria for next frie nd standing to bring a lawsuit on behalf of 
Petitioner. 
An “application for a writ of habeas corpus shall be in writing signed and verified 
by the person for whose relief it is intended or by someone acting in his behalf.” 28 U.S.C. 
§ 2242. A “next friend” may pursue relief on behalf of a detained person who is unable to 
seek relief on his own. Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 162 (1990). But “‘next friend’ 
standing is by no means grante d automatically to whomever seeks to pursue an action on 
behalf of another.” Id. at 163. 
To pursue a case as a next friend, the proposed next friend must show “that the real 
party in interest is unable to litigate his own cause due to mental incapacity, lack of access 
to court, or other similar disability.” Id. at 165; see also Williams v. Boone, No. 98-6357, 
1999 WL 34856, at *5 (10th Cir. Jan. 28, 1999) (“A next friend may not file a petition for 
a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a detain ee if the detainee himself could file the 
petition.”). The proposed next friend must also demonstrate they are “truly dedicated to the 
best interests of the person on whose behalf he seeks to litigate” and “have some significant 
relationship with the real party in interest.” Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 163-64. The burden is 
on the next friend to “clearly . . . establish the propriety of his status and thereby justify the 
jurisdiction of the court.” Id. at 164; see also Jiron v. Swift, 671 F. App’x 705, 706 (10th 

4 
 
Cir. 2016) (unpublished) (den ying certificate of appealability and dismissing appeal of 
“next friend” who failed to satisfy the Whitmore factors for next friend standing). 
Although Ms. Garibo demons trated that she has a significant relationship with 
Petitioner and is “truly dedicated to the best interests” of Petitioner, she has not shown that 
he is unable to litigate his ow n case. Indeed, Petitioner’s st atus as a detainee does not 
demonstrate that he is unable to file or sign his petition justifying the need for a next friend 
to file one on his behalf. See, e.g., Jiron , 671 F. App’x at 706 (unpublished) (rejecting 
father’s attempt to act as next friend when he failed to show how his daughter’s 
incarceration and failure to receive certain docum ents from the district court “interfered 
with her ability to communicate with the district court”). Moreover, the fact that Petitioner 
was able to execute a verified declaration further evidences his ability to sign a petition and 
litigate this case on his own. [Doc. No. 11, at p. 5]. 
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report [Doc. No. 10] in its entirety. 
CONCLUSION 
 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT 
PREJUDICE. A separate judgment shall be entered. 
 IT IS SO ORDERED this 15th day of June, 2026. 
 
 
 

Passage view · GavelSight