Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
3:26-cv-01116-RBM-MMP
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
CHENGHONG XIE,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, in his official
capacity as Warden of Otay Mesa Detention
Center, et al.,
Respondents
Case No.: 3:26-cv-01116-RBM-MMP
ORDER REQUIRING JOINT
STATUS REPORT
Pending before the Court is Petitioner Chenghong Xie’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”). (Doc. 1.) In his Reply,
Petitioner notes that he “has been moved to the Cal City detention [facility] since filing his
habeas petition.” (Doc. 5 at 7.) The Court thus requires additional information.
On February 20, 2026, Petitioner filed the Petition. (Doc. 1.) At this time, Petitioner
was detained at the Otay Mesa Detention Facility. (See id. ¶¶ 5, 7.) On February 23, 2026,
the Court issued its Order to Show Cause, which set a briefing schedule and ordered that
“[t]o preserve the Court’s jurisdiction and to maintain the status quo, Petitioner SHALL
NOT be transferred outside of the Southern District of California pending a ruling in this
matter.” 	(Doc. 2 at 1–2 (emphasis in original) (citation omitted).) 	On March 2, 2026,
Respondents filed their Return to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. 4.) The Return
Case 3:26-cv-01116-RBM-MMP Document 6 Filed 03/23/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
3:26-cv-01116-RBM-MMP
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
does not indicate that Petitioner had been transferred to California City Detention Facility.
On March 6, 2026, Petitioner filed his Reply, indicating that he had been transferred to
California City Detention Facility “since filing his habeas petition.” (Doc. 5 at 7.)
Therefore, the Court ORDERS the Parties to file a Joint Status Report on or before
March 30, 2026. The Joint Status Report shall include: (1) when Petitioner was transferred
to California City Detention Facility, with documentary evidence indicating the date of
transfer; and (2) whether, at the time of the filing of the Petition, the Court had jurisdiction.
See Cruz Escamilla v. Brightman, 3:25-cv-03518-RBM-BLM, ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. Dec.
12, 2025) (discussing the requirement that a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2241 must be brought in the district in which the petitioner is presently confined).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: March 23, 2026
____________________________________
HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-01116-RBM-MMP Document 6 Filed 03/23/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2