Helstrom v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
6:25-cv-03136
W.D. Mo.Jun 4, 2025Background
- Mark Helstrom, acting pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on behalf of his wife, Mandy Helstrom, who is detained by ICE in Greene County Jail, Missouri.
- The petition was signed only by Mark Helstrom and not by Mandy Helstrom.
- Mark sought various reliefs, including a stay of deportation, Mandy’s immediate release, and due process protections.
- The court ordered Mark to show cause why he should be allowed to act as Mandy’s “next friend” in this case.
- Mark explained that Mandy was capable of submitting her own Section 2241 petition and was working on mailing it to the court.
- The Court found Mark lacked standing to file for Mandy and severed and dismissed him from the petition, while granting Mandy leave to file her own petition by June 13, 2025.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to file habeas petition for another | Mark: Mandy has given power of attorney, is detained, action needed on her behalf | ICE: Must be filed by the real party in interest or by counsel | Only the actual detainee or licensed counsel may file; power of attorney does not confer standing |
| Appointment as "next friend" | Mark: acting in Mandy's best interest | ICE: No grounds to excuse Mandy's non-participation | No adequate explanation; next friend status denied |
| Need for immediate relief from detention | Mark: alleges detention is unlawful | ICE: no response before standing resolved | Not reached; defective petition dismissed |
| Right to file amended petition | Mark: Mandy is preparing her own filing | ICE: n/a | Mandy given an extension to file amended petition |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (explains requirements for someone to act as "next friend" in habeas petitions)
- Knoefler v. United Bank of Bismarck, 20 F.3d 347 (non-lawyers cannot represent others in federal court)
- Osei–Afriyie by Osei-Afriyie v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, 937 F.2d 876 (parent/guardian cannot litigate pro se for children in federal court)
- Estate of Keatinge v. Biddle, 316 F.3d 7 (power of attorney does not authorize pro se representation in federal court)
- Powerserve Int'l, Inc. v. Lavi, 239 F.3d 508 (attorney-in-fact cannot litigate pro se for grantor)