Tatiana Skvortsova, by next friend Zakhar Inker v. Pamela Bondi, et al.

Skvortsova · United States District Court for the Southern District of California · February 2, 2026 · No. 26-cv-0073-AGS-SBC

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California denied Zakhar Inker’s request to proceed as next friend for his detained sister, Tatiana Skvortsova, in a habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court held that Inker failed to provide evidence that Skvortsova was unable to litigate her own case, as required for next-friend standing. The petition was dismissed without prejudice, the case was closed, and the court permitted a renewed next-friend motion or notice from Skvortsova by February 23, 2026.

Court
United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Writing for the Court
Andrew G. Schopler
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Decision date
February 2, 2026
Docket number
26-cv-0073-AGS-SBC
Procedural posture
Petitioner, acting through her brother as a purported next friend, sought a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge immigration detention. The court denied the request to proceed through a next friend and dismissed the petition without prejudice for lack of standing.
Standard of review
The putative next friend bears the burden of clearly establishing the propriety of next-friend status and satisfying the requirements for next-friend standing.
Precedential value
unknown
Parties
Tatiana Skvortsova, by next friend Zakhar Inker v. Pamela Bondi, et al.
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

immigration detentionstandingremoval proceedingscivil procedure

Practice areas

immigrationcivil procedureconstitutional law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Zakhar Inker established that Tatiana Skvortsova was unable to litigate her own habeas case, as required for next-friend standing.
  2. Whether, absent valid next-friend authorization, the petition should be dismissed for lack of standing.

Holdings

  1. A putative next friend must provide meaningful evidence that the petitioner is unable to litigate her own case because of mental incapacity, lack of access to court, or a similar disability; detention and restricted communication alone do not satisfy that requirement.
  2. Without next-friend authorization, a person who files a habeas petition on behalf of another lacks standing to bring the suit, requiring dismissal without prejudice.

Key quotations

In order to establish next-friend standing, the putative next friend must show: (1) that the petitioner is unable to litigate [her] own cause due to mental incapacity, lack of access to court, or other similar disability; and (2) the next friend has some significant relationship with, and is truly dedicated to the best interests of, the petitioner. (at 1)
Because it contravenes the normal concepts of Article III standing, the “burden is on the ‘next friend’ clearly to establish the propriety of his status and thereby justify the jurisdiction of the court.” (at 1)

Factual background

Tatiana Skvortsova was in immigration detention and sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Her brother, Zakhar Inker, attempted to litigate the petition as her next friend. He presented no information or meaningful evidence showing that Skvortsova was mentally incapacitated, lacked access to court, or otherwise could not litigate her own case.

Procedural history

Zakhar Inker filed the habeas petition on behalf of his detained sister, Tatiana Skvortsova, and sought authorization to litigate as her next friend. The district court found that Inker presented no information showing that Skvortsova was unable to litigate her own case, denied next-friend authorization, dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of standing, and directed the Clerk to close the case. The court permitted Inker to file an updated motion or Skvortsova to notify the court that she would pursue the petition herself, in which event the case could be reopened.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…