Deglis Yohardis Salazar Osuna v. LaDeon Francis, Field Office Director of...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Deglis Yohardis SALAZAR OSUNA, Petitioner, v. LaDeon FRANCIS, Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, New York Field Office, Immigration and Customs 25-CV-9823 (RA) Enforcement; Todd LYONS, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Kristi ORDER GRANTING NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department of PRO BONO COUNSEL Homeland Security; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; Pamela BONDI, U.S. Attorney General; EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW; Respondents.

RONNIE ABRAMS, United States District Judge: On November 25, 2025, Jessica Walker filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on Petitioner’s behalf as Petitioner’s “next friend.” Dkt. No. 1.

The Court finds that the appointment of pro bono counsel is appropriate in this case. In making this finding, the Court has considered the factors set forth in Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 61-62 (2d Cir. 1986), which 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).

The Court finds that the Hodge factors weigh in favor of seeking pro bono counsel for Petitioner. In particular, the location of Petitioner’s detention, both currently and at the time the petition was filed, presents complex jurisdictional and other legal questions. Moreover, 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 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.

Accordingly, the Court directs the Clerk of Court 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 Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 301 (1989). There is no guarantee that a volunteer attorney will decide to take the case or that, should the services of the volunteer be declined, the court will locate another. In either instance, Petitioner should be prepared to proceed with the case pro se. If an attorney volunteers, the attorney will contact Petitioner, or his next friend, directly.

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 should inform the Court as soon as possible.

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 send by regular mail a copy of this order to the Petitioner in care of his next friend.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 1, 2025 ( New York, New York fo 4] United States District Judge