CATHY ANN CATALDO BY AND THROUGH HER NEXT FRIEND VERONIKA ORLANDO PETITIONER v. WARDEN HENDERSON DETENTION CENTER ET AL RESPONDENT (2026)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

This is an original, emergency pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, filed on behalf of Cathy Ann Cataldo by next friend Veronika Orlando.¹ In the petition, Orlando argues that Cataldo should be released from custody because the justice court loses jurisdiction to reinstate a suspended sentence after two years under NRS 5.055, regardless of any purportedly unserved warrant that issues before the suspension expires. She asserts that she filed a similar petition in the district court but that court has failed to take action in the four weeks since she filed it, and the currently scheduled July 6, 2026, hearing will come after Cataldo has served a majority of her sentence.

The petition suffers threshold deficiencies, rendering our consideration of its merits unavailable.² Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 22, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (noting that petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that writ relief is warranted). First, based on the limited information provided, Orlando has not demonstrated that she may represent Cataldo. This court has recognized “next friend” standing, which allows the next friend to seek habeas relief on behalf of the real party in interest.³ Calambro, by & through Calambro v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 114 Nev. 961, 969, 964 P.2d 794, 799 (1998). To qualify, the proposed next friend must demonstrate that the real party in interest is unable to bring the action herself due to “inaccessibility, mental incompetence, or other disability,” as well as true dedication to pursuing the real party's interests. Id. Here, Orlando fails to meet the first prong. She asserts that Cataldo is unable to “prepare, sign, or file documents due to her incarceration and restricted access to legal materials, printing, and scanning.” This is insufficient. See Williamson v. Wakefield, No. 3:23-CV-P339-JHM, 2023 WL 7399128, at *2 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 3, 2023) (stating that “the fact of incarceration itself is insufficient to show that a petitioner is inaccessible” and citing cases).

Second, under NRAP 22, “[a]n application for an original writ of habeas corpus should be made to the appropriate district court” in the first instance. Doing so allows the full development of factual and legal issues in the district court, giving this court an adequate record to review. See Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 604, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981) (recognizing that “an appellate court is not an appropriate forum in which to resolve disputed questions of fact”); State v. County of Douglas, 90 Nev. 272, 276-77, 524 P.2d 1271, 1274 (1974) (noting that “this court prefers that such an application [for writ relief] be addressed to the discretion of the appropriate district court” in the first instance), abrogated on other grounds by Cortez Masto v. Gypsum Res., 129 Nev. 23, 33-34, 294 P.3d 404, 410-11 (2013). While Orlando argues that the district court's failure to proceed more promptly justifies this court's intervention, we disagree. We anticipate that the district court will address Orlando's next friend petition as promptly as its docket allows. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Stiglich, J.

Cadish, J.

Lee, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   As the filing fee in this matter has been waived, petitioner's motion to proceed with in forma pauperis status is denied as moot.

2.   We note also that the appendix appears to lack some of the items necessary for a merits review, such as the July 23, 2023, sentencing order mentioned on page 2 of the petition and any order or minutes reinstating the suspended sentence, and that some of the documents purportedly filed in the district court do not bear that court's file-stamp. See NRAP 21(a)(4).

3.   It appears that most courts have concluded next friends may not proceed pro se. See, e.g., Elustra v. Mineo, 595 F.3d 699, 704 (7th Cir. 2010); Falla Portillo by & through Mejia Portillo v. Facility Dir., Cal. City Corr. Facility, No. 1:26-CV-00527-DJC-CSK, 2026 WL 192397, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2026); see generally Guerin v. Guerin, 116 Nev. 210, 214, 993 P.2d 1256, 1258 (2000) (recognizing that a non-attorney may not represent any other person or entity in this court). In light of this order, we need not decide whether Orlando may proceed as next friend without counsel.