Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
3:26-cv-5494-JES-DDL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ZHENTAI ZHANG,
Petitioner,
v.
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary of
the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security; TODD BLANCHE, Attorney
General of the United States; ACTING
DIRECTOR, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; SAN DIEGO
FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
Enforcement and Removal Operations;
and CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, in his
official capacity as Senior Warden of the
Otay Mesa Detention Center,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-cv-5494-JES-DDL
ORDER FOR JOINT STATUS
REPORT
[ECF No. 1]
Before the Court is Petitioner Zhentai Zhang’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Pet.”) and Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order (“TRO”). ECF Nos. 1, 2. On September 28, 2026, the Court ordered
Respondents to show cause, on or before October 1, 2026, as to why the Petition and TRO
Case 3:26-cv-05494-JES-DDL Document 7 Filed 10/13/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
3:26-cv-5494-JES-DDL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
should not be granted. ECF No. 3 (“OSC”). On October 1, 2026, Respondents filed a
Response, and Petitioner filed a Traverse on October 7, 2026. ECF Nos. 5 (“Return”), 6
(“Trav.”).
Petitioner alleges that his continued detention violates the INA and the Due Process
Clause, and requests that the Court order a constitutionally adequate bond hearing before
a neutral decisionmaker. Pet. ¶¶ 51–61. Respondents concede that Petitioner is detained
under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and thus entitled to a bond hearing before an immigration judge.
Return at 3. However, they contend that the Petition should be denied because Petitioner
has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by requesting a bond hearing. Id. at 3–4.
In his Traverse, Petitioner claims that he did request a bond hearing via a September 19,
2026, Notice of Custody Determination, but acknowledged his refused to sign the Notice.
Trav. ¶¶ 9, 15. Petitioner also notes that his counsel intended to file a motion for a bond
hearing with “the appropriate immigration court” by October 7, 2026. Id. ¶ 25. The status
of both requests remains unclear.
The Court hereby ORDERS the parties to file a joint status report no later than
Tuesday, October 20, 2026, apprising the Court of the status of Petitioner’s bond hearing
requests, whether the hearing has been scheduled, and the result of that hearing (if
applicable), so that the Court may determine whether the Petitioner still presents a live
controversy within the Court’s jurisdiction. The Court’s prior stay of removal remains in
effect. See OSC.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 13, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-05494-JES-DDL Document 7 Filed 10/13/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2