Kati Andrea Fuentes DeLuque ex rel. Jhoan Maza Herrera v. LaDeon Francis, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK KATI ANDREA FUENTES DeLUQUE ex rel.

JHOAN MAZA HERRERA, Petitioner, 25 Civ. 8602 (JHR) -against- ORDER GRANTING PRO BONO COUNSEL LaDEON FRANCIS, et al., Respondents.

JENNIFER H. REARDEN, District Judge: On October 17, 2025, Petitioner Jhoan Maza Herrera, through his next friend, Kati Andrea Fuentes DeLuque, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1 (Pet.). The Petition alleged that, at the time of its filing, Petitioner was being held at 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York. Id. at 3. Petitioner sought “an order directing Respondent[s] to show cause why a writ should not be granted within 15-30 days.” Id. at 10.

The Court directed Respondents to show cause by November 3, 2025, and Petitioner to file any reply by November 18, 2025. ECF No. 6. The Court also scheduled a hearing for November 24, 2025. Id. Respondents timely filed their papers, ECF No. 10, and Petitioner filed his reply on November 13, 2025, ECF No. 13. On November 17, 2025, Respondents informed the Court that a master calendar hearing in Petitioner’s immigration case had been continued from November 13, 2025 to November 25, 2025. ECF No. 14. Accordingly, the Court rescheduled the hearing on the habeas Petition for November 26, 2025.1 ECF No. 17. Although Petitioner is represented

1 Because a hearing on November 26, 2025 would create a conflict for Respondents and also for potential new counsel for Petitioner, the Court will hold the hearing on another date forthwith. by counsel in his immigration case, the Court understands that Petitioner remains unrepresented in this proceeding. See ECF No. 16.

DISCUSSION The Court finds that the appointment of pro bono counsel is appropriate in this case. In the Second Circuit, pro bono counsel may be appointed upon consideration of the following: (1) whether the party’s claim has substantial merit, (2) whether the nature of the factual issues requires an investigation, and the party’s ability to investigate is inhibited, (3) whether the claim’s factual issues involve questions of credibility, which draws on 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. (the “Hodge” factors). Garcia v. USICE (Dept. of Homeland Sec., 669 F.3d 91, 98-99 (2d Cir. 2011) (citing Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 61-62 (2d Cir. 1986)). The Second Circuit has explained that not “all, or indeed any, of the factors must be controlling in a particular case,” and that “[e]ach case must be decided on its own facts.” Hodge, 802 F.2d at 61; see Gunn v. Milani, No. 20 Civ. 2681 (KMK), 2024 WL 5056490, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 2024) (granting pro bono counsel pursuant to the Hodge factors in “the context of the specific circumstances of th[e] case at th[at] juncture”).

The Hodge factors favor seeking pro bono counsel for Petitioner. Petitioner’s abilities to present his case and to conduct any related fact investigation are significantly limited due to his incarceration and the emergency nature of his Petition. In addition, the questions raised by the Petition fall within a rapidly developing area of the law. Representation would “lead to a quicker and more just result by sharpening the issues[.]” Hodge, 802 F.2d at 61; see also Automated Mgmt. Sys., Inc. v. Rappaport Hertz Cherson & Rosenthal P.C., No. 16 Civ. 4762 (LTS) (JW), 2024 WL 1023267, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2024) (finding that, “on balance,” pro bono counsel was warranted “after taking all the relevant factors into account”).

Accordingly, the Court directs the Clerk of Court to attempt to locate pro bono counsel to represent Petitioner in this case. For the avoidance of doubt, the Court does not have the authority to “appoint” counsel; instead, the Court may only “request” that an attorney volunteer to represent a litigant pro bono. Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 301-10 (1989). The Court further notes that there is no guarantee that a volunteer attorney will decide to take the case and, should Petitioner decline the services of the volunteer, there is no guarantee that another attorney may be secured. If an attorney volunteers, the attorney will contact Petitioner, or his next friend, directly.

If Petitioner has already successfully retained 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 25, 2025.

The Court has established a Pro Bono Fund to encourage greater attorney representation of pro se litigants. See https ://nysd. uscourts. gov/forms/pro-bono-fund-order.

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court directs the Clerk of Court to attempt to locate pro bono counsel to represent Petitioner in this case. The Clerk of Court is further directed to immediately e-mail a copy of this Order to Petitioner in care of his next friend, at [email protected].

The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).

SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 21, 2025 New York, New York u Hp Kear eu, Pcie Rtacon.

United States District Judge