Hilda Cecilia Villegas ex rel. Lisual Armando Guzman Andujar v. LaDeon Francis,...

USONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTEISST DRIISCTTR OICFT N CEOWU YROTR K HILDA CECILIA VILLEGAS ex rel. LISUAL ARMANDO GUZMAN ANDUJAR, Petitioner, -against- Case No. 1:25-cv-09199 (JLR) LaDEON FRANCIS, in his official capacity as Acting Field Office Director of New York ORDER GRANTING PRO BONO Immigration and Customs Enforcement; COUNSEL KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security; and PAM BONDI, in her official capacity as Attorney General, Respondents.

JENNIFER L. ROCHON, United States District Judge: WHEREAS Lisual Armando Guzman Andujar filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on November 4, 2025, through his next friend Hilda Cecilia Villegas while Petitioner was present in the Southern District of New York; WHEREAS the Court issued an Order to Show Cause on November 4, 2025, and a hearing is scheduled for November 14, 2025; WHEREAS Petitioner’s reply to the Government’s opposition to the petition is due on November 11, 2025; WHEREAS the Court has considered the factors set forth in Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60-62 (2d Cir. 1986) in deciding whether to seek pro bono counsel for Petitioner; WHEREAS the Hodge factors include: “(1) whether the party’s claim has substantial merit; (2) whether the nature of the factual issues requires an investigation, and whether the party’s ability to investigate is inhibited; (3) whether the claim’s factual issues turn on credibility, which benefits from the skills of those trained in presentation of evidence and cross-examination; (4) the party’s overall ability to present its case; and (5) whether the legal issues presented are complex.” Garcia v. USICE (Dept. of Homeland Sec.), 669 F.3d 91, 98-99 (2d Cir. 2011); WHEREAS the Court finds that the Hodge factors weigh in favor of seeking pro bono counsel for Petitioner. Petitioner’s abilities to present his case and conduct any related fact investigation are significantly limited due to his incarceration and the emergency nature of his habeas petition. Thus, in this case, representation would “lead to a quicker and more just result by sharpening the issues[.]” Hodge, 802 F.2d at 61; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Clerk of Court is directed to attempt to locate pro bono counsel to represent Petitioner in this case. It should be noted that the Court does not have the authority to “appoint” counsel, but instead, may only “request” that an attorney volunteer to represent a litigant pro bono. Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of lowa, 490 U.S. 296, 301-10 (1989). If an attorney volunteers, the attorney will contact Petitioner, or his next friend, directly; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED if Petitioner has already successfully secured counsel on his own, or otherwise does not wish the Court to seek volunteers for pro bono counsel, he must inform the Court by November 7, 2025; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to immediately e-mail a copy of this Order to the Petitioner in care of his next friend, Hilda Cecilia Villegas, at [email protected].

Dated: November 5, 2025 New York, New York SO ORDERED.

geet fochon United States District Judge