Southern District of California • 3:26-cv-02409

#1

Apr 15, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Field Office Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 168645.), filed by Jingke Tao. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibits, # 3 Receipt, # 4 Mailing Envelope)The new case number is 3:26-cv-2409-JO-MMP. Judge Jinsook Ohta and Magistrate Judge Michelle M. Pettit are assigned to the case.(rxc) (Entered: 04/17/2026)

#2

Apr 17, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: The Court adopts with the following modification the Standard Procedures for Immigration Habeas Petitions from Chief Judge Order No. 144, available on the court's website: Any optional reply will be due 3 days after the government's opposition. Further, the Court sets a hearing on the Petition for May 7, 2026 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 4C. All parties may appear by videoconference for the hearing. The courtroom deputy will provide the videoconference information ahead of the hearing, which will proceed unless the Court issues a written decision on the merits ahead of the hearing date. Parties are directed to check the docket at 5:00 PM the day before the hearing. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 04/17/2026. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (rxc). (Entered: 04/17/2026)

Apr 17, 2026

Minute Order (No Time) AND ~Util - Set Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings

#3

Apr 23, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#4

Apr 24, 2026

Return to Petition for Writ of H/C

#5

May 01, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: The Court VACATES the May 7, 2026 hearing and ORDERS Respondents to file a status report detailing the outcome of Petitioner's merits hearing by May 16, 2026. The Court will take the matter under submission upon receipt of the status report. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 05/01/2026. (rh) (Entered: 05/01/2026)

May 01, 2026

Minute Order (No Time) AND ~Util - Terminate Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings

#6

May 15, 2026

Status Report

#7

May 21, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Jingke Tao filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging her prolonged detention without a bond hearing as a violation of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. Dkt. 1. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the habeas petition. 1. On November 18, 2025, Petitioner entered the United States and was immediately detained by immigration officials. Dkt. 1-2 at 12, Dkt. 4-1 at 4. On May 14, 2026, an immigration judge ordered Petitioner removed to China but granted withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture. Dkt. 6 at 1. Both parties reserved appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Id. Meanwhile, Petitioner has remained in immigration custody without a bond hearing for over six months. Id.2. For the reasons stated in Esquivel Pacheco v. LaRose, 818 F. Supp. 3d 1168, 1174-75 (S.D. Cal. 2026), the Court finds that 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(g), (a)(5), and (b)(9) do not bar Petitioner's collateral challenge to the constitutionality and legality of her current detention. 3. For the reasons stated in Faizi v. Larose, No. 25-CV-02974-JO-MSB, 2026 WL 1112035, *3-*5 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2026), the Court examines whether, notwithstanding statutory authorization, Petitioner's prolonged detention without a bond hearing violates the Due Process Clause. As explained in Faizi, the Court considers the likely duration of detention---both elapsed and anticipated---and whether Petitioner has delayed proceedings in bad faith. See id. Here, Petitioner has been detained for over six months, and any appeals have yet to go in front of the BIA. See Dkt. 6 at 1. Further appeals from either side would extend detention by months or years, such that the total period of confinement could approach or exceed two years without any showing of undue or bad faith delay by Petitioner. This duration of civil detention without a bond hearing gravely risks the erroneous deprivation of Petitioner's liberty interest, especially here when the record contains no evidence that she presents a danger to the community or a flight risk or that the government has another legitimate interest in her continued detention. See id. at *4; see also Pinchi v. Noem, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1035 (N.D. Cal. 2025) ("Detention for its own sake... is not a legitimate government interest."). The Court therefore finds that Petitioner's prolonged detention without a bond hearing violates her Fifth Amendment due process rights. The Court's ruling and injunctive terms are set forth in a separate order at Dkt. 8. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 05/21/2026. (rh) (Entered: 05/21/2026)

#8

May 21, 2026

Order

May 21, 2026

Minute Order (No Time) AND ~Util - Terminate Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings

#9

May 22, 2026

Judgment - Clerk

#10

Jun 02, 2026

Notice (Other)