Shanrong Zhang v. Rafael Vergara, Warden, Adams County Correctional Center and...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI WESTERN DIVISION PETITIONER SHANRONG ZHANG Cause No. 5:26-cv-00280-DCB-BWR V. RAFAEL VERGARA, RESPONDENT Warden, Adams County Correctional Center and BRIAN ACUNA Acting Field Office Director, Enforcement and Removal Operations REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THIS MATTER is before the Court on the 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition [1] filed through counsel by Shanrong Zhang, who was formerly in immigration detention at Adams County Correctional Center in Natchez, Mississippi, and a Motion to Dismiss [6] filed by Respondents who notify the Court that Petitioner has been released from detention pursuant to an Order of Supervision. See Release Notification [6-1].

Petitioner’s counsel does not oppose the Motion to Dismiss and has filed a Response confirming that “Petitioner is no longer in custody of Respondents and, therefore, is no longer seeking habeas relief in this matter.” Response [7] at 1.

“Under Article III of the Constitution, federal courts may adjudicate only actual, ongoing cases or controversies.” Lewis v. Cont'l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990). The Petition is moot because Petitioner is no longer detained. See Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103, 106 (2020) (describing habeas in the immigration context as “traditionally . . . a means to secure release from unlawful detention” and not “to obtain additional administrative review of his asylum claim and ultimately to obtain authorization to stay in this country.”) (emphasis in original). The Petition does not present a live case or controversy for purposes of satisfying Article III.

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Petition [1] be dismissed without prejudice as moot.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT Within fourteen days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A party may respond to another party’s objections within 14 days after being served with a copy of the objections. Id. The district judge will determine de novo any part of the Report and Recommendation that has been properly objected to. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the Report and Recommendation; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. Id. An objecting party must specifically identify the findings, conclusions, and recommendations to which he objects. A district judge need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. A party who fails to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations shall be barred, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal any proposed factual finding or legal conclusion adopted by the Court to which he did not object. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Assoc., 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

SIGNED, this the 28th day of May 2026.

Bradley W. Rath s/ BRADLEY W. RATH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE