Western District of New York • 1:26-cv-02165

#1

Sep 25, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Deyuan Shi. (Attachments: # 1 Attorney Declaration, # 2 Demand Letter) (JHF) (Entered: 09/25/2026)

#2

Sep 25, 2026

MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, MOTION for Permanent Injunction by Deyuan Shi. (JHF) (Entered: 09/25/2026)

#3

Sep 25, 2026

MOTION to Seal by Deyuan Shi. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment) (JHF) (Entered: 09/25/2026)

#4

Sep 25, 2026

MOTION for Leave to Appear Pending Attorney Admission by Deyuan Shi. (JHF) (Entered: 09/25/2026)

#5

Sep 25, 2026

NOTICE of Filing of Supplemental Exhibits by Deyuan Shi. (JHF) (Entered: 09/25/2026)

Sep 25, 2026

Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge: A United States Magistrate of this Court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(c) and FRCP 73. The Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge form (AO-85) is available for download at http://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/forms. (JHF)

#6

Sep 28, 2026

TEXT ORDER. There is no need to interfere with the Department of Homeland Security's authority to "arrange for appropriate places of detention for aliens detained pending removal or a decision on removal[,]" under Title 8, United States Code, Section 1231(g)(1), because this Court will retain jurisdiction over Petitioner's habeas petition regardless of where he is transferred. See Santillanes v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 754 F.2d 887, 888 (10th Cir. 1985) ("It is well established that jurisdiction attaches on the initial filing for habeas corpus relief, and it is not destroyed by a transfer of the petitioner and the accompanying custodial change."). Moreover, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) bars this Court from enjoining Respondents from removing Petitioner from the United States while this proceeding is pending. See Reno v. Am.-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 482 (1999); Delgado v. Quarantillo, 643 F.3d 52, 53 (2d Cir. 2011). The Court has considered Petitioner's additional arguments, but those arguments do not entitle him to a TRO here. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (moving party must establish: (1) a likelihood of irreparable harm absent preliminary relief; (2) a likelihood of success on the merits; (3) the balance of equities tipping in favor of the moving party; and (4) that the public interest is served by an injunction); see also Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, 602 U.S. 339, 346 (2024) ("The default rule is that a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must make a clear showing that 'he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.'") (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 20); Jones v. Wolf, 467 F. Supp. 3d 74, 81 (W.D.N.Y. 2020) (the "same standard" governs consideration of an application for a temporary restraining order). Similarly, Petitioners request in the TRO that Respondents preserve all body-worn camera footage and all notes, recordings, and records of Petitioners September 9, 2026 arrest and subsequent processing is likely without merit. See, e.g., Palma v. Powell, 828 F. Supp. 3d 1297, 1308 (N.D. Ala. 2026) ([T]he Constitution does not prohibit arrests made in violation of statute (citing Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164, 176-78 (2008)). See also id. (explaining that, the Fourth Amendment permits warrantless arrests where the arresting officer possesses probable cause and that, even if the petitioners arrest was warrantless, it may still have been constitutional if the arresting officers had probable cause to believe that he committed a crime in their presence or had committed a felony). See also id. (Regardless, habeas is not a vehicle to redress defects in an initial arrest; its function is to determine whether the petitioner may lawfully remain in custody... If lawful grounds for detention exist, [the petitioner] is not entitled to release even if there were flaws in his original arrest) (citing U.S. ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U.S. 149, 158 (1923)). Cf. I.N.S. v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1039 (1984) (The body or identity of a defendant or respondent in a criminal or civil proceeding is never itself suppressible as a fruit of an unlawful arrest, even if it is conceded that an unlawful arrest, search, or interrogation occurred.) (citations omitted); see also Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427, 447 (2d Cir. 2008) (noting that litigating the conduct surrounding an arrest would impose an intolerable administrative burden on the immigration enforcement system. Given that officers may arrest several aliens per day, they cannot be expected to compile elaborate, contemporaneous, written reports detailing the circumstances of every arrest.) (quoting Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. at 1049). The Government, however, is directed to respond to this request in its response. Petitioner's motion for an ex parte TRO (Dkt. 2 ), therefore, is DENIED and can be revisited later if necessary. Respondents shall respond to the 1 petition by October 9, 2026. Petitioner's reply is due by October 16, 2026. The Clerk of Court shall serve a copy of the petition (Dkt. 1 ), the motion for TRO (Dkt. 2 ), the motion to seal (Dkt. 3 ), and this Text Order, electronically via a Notice of Electronic Filing to the United States Attorney's Office, Western District of New York at USANYW-Immigration-Habeas@usdoj.gov. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. John L. Sinatra, Jr. on 9/28/2026. (KLH) Modified on 9/28/2026. (KLH) (Entered: 09/28/2026)

#7

Sep 28, 2026

TEXT ORDER re Petitioner's 3 MOTION to seal. Petitioner's motion is GRANTED to the extent that it seeks to seal certain portions of the exhibits. Petitioner, however, shall file redacted versions of the exhibits on the docket. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. John L. Sinatra, Jr. on 09/28/2026. (TDM).This was mailed to: Deyuan Shi.Clerk to Follow up (Entered: 09/28/2026)

#8

Sep 28, 2026

TEXT ORDER. The 4 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pending Attorney Admission by Deyuan Shi is DENIED subject to compliance with Western District of New York Local Rule of Civil Procedure 83.1. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. John L. Sinatra, Jr. on 09/28/2026. (TDM).This was mailed to: Deyuan Shi. (Entered: 09/28/2026)

Sep 28, 2026

Filing fee: $ 5.00, receipt number 600002003. (DDS)

Sep 28, 2026

Remark: Chambers emailed a copy of the docket together with 1 Petition, 2 Motion for TRO, and 3 Motion to Seal to USANYW-Immigration-Habeas@usdoj.gov. (KLH)