Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
M.B.D., :
:
Petitioner, :
:
v. : Case No. 4:26-cv-220-CDL-ALS
:
Warden, STEWART DETENTION :
CENTER, et al., :
:
Respondents. :
_____________________________
ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING
Pending before the Court are Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss and Petitioner’s
response thereto. (ECF Nos. 7, 11). In relevant part, Respondents argue that Petitioner
cannot state a claim under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), because, according
to Respondents, Petitioner has not met his burden to present evidence showing that his
removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future, and even if he had,
Respondents contend they have met their burden to show that there is a significant
likelihood of Petitioner’s removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. (ECF no. 7, at 14-
16). In support of their contention, Respondents submit the Declaration of Supervisory
Detention and Deportation Officer Stephens. (ECF No. 7-1). In response, Petitioner
submitted his own Declaration. (ECF No. 11-1). Having considered the competing
Declarations, the Court finds that supplemental briefing is necessary to resolve the
question whether there is a significant likelihood of Petitioner’s removal in the reasonably
foreseeable future.
Accordingly, the Parties are each ORDERED to address, in full with supporting
documentation as appropriate to the respective response, the following:
Case 4:26-cv-00220-CDL-ALS Document 12 Filed 04/16/26 Page 1 of 2

2
What efforts at removal, if any, have Respondents attempted since the December
11, 2025 email to HQ RIO? (ECF No. 7-1, at 2). Respondents are DIRECTED to submit
substantiating documentation, if any, in support of their response to this question.
Petitioner alleges that he has repeatedly been informed by Chinese officials that,
because he lacks a passport, national identity card, or residency card, he is unable to prove
his citizenship. (ECF No. 11-1, at 3). Further, Petitioner alleges that he was released from
detention on an Order of Supervision in or around 2014 precisely because Respondents
were unable to obtain travel documents for Petitioner from China. Id. Respondents are
DIRECTED to address Petitioner’s allegations and explain, if those allegations are true,
how the absence of such documentation would affect their ability to remove Petitioner to
China, and how they plan to carry out that removal, particularly given that Respondents
were previously unable to secure Chinese travel documents for Petitioner.
Respondents shall submit their responses within TWENTY (21) DAYS of the
date of this Order. Thereafter, Petitioner shall submit his responses within fourteen (14)
days of Respondents’ response filing, failing which the Court will presume Respondents’
responses uncontested and correct. Respondents may, if they choose to do so, file any
desired reply within seven (7) days of Petitioner’s response filing. At the conclusion of
briefing, the Court will determine whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary.
SO ORDERED, this 16th day of April, 2026.
s/ ALFREDA L. SHEPPARD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-00220-CDL-ALS Document 12 Filed 04/16/26 Page 2 of 2