Qingdi Zheng v. Warden, Otero County Processing Center, Mary De Anda-Ybarra,...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

QINGDI ZHENG, Petitioner, v. Civ. No. 26-0538-KG-LF WARDEN, Otero County Processing Center, MARY DE ANDA-YBARRA, Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, El Paso Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; TODD LYONS, Acting Director Immigration and Customs Enforcement; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department Of Homeland Security; AND PAMELA BONDI, U.S. Attorney General, Respondents,1

ORDER TO ANSWER This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Qingdi Zheng’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) (Petition). Petitioner is an immigration detainee at the Otero County Processing Center and is proceeding pro se. He has been in the United States since 2023. The Petition challenges his continued detention and, in particular, the failure to provide an adequate bond hearing.

Accepting the facts as true, Petitioner has raised a colorable claim for relief that he is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226, rather than 8 U.S.C. § 1225. See Garcia Sanchez v. The pro se Petition names Noem and De Anda-Ybarra, and the Court will add the above-mentioned parties as Respondents. See Torres-Torres v. Miller, 2020 WL 4430519 (D.N.M. July 31, 2020) (discussing the respondents in an immigration habeas case); Lowmaster v. Dir., Bureau of Prisons, 2024 WL 5135970, at *1 (D. Kan. Dec. 17, 2024) (“the Court notes that it routinely substitutes the” proper parties as “respondent in habeas cases”); Danderson v. Page, 2024 WL 3913051, at *2 (E.D. Okla. Aug. 20, 2024) (substituting the proper party respondent in a habeas case).

Noem, et al., 25-cv-1219 KG/JFR (concluding petitioner was detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226, rather than 8 U.S.C. § 1225, and ordering Respondents to provide a bond hearing); Pu Sacvin v. De Anda-Ybarra, 2025 WL 3187432, at *3 (D.N.M.) (Gonzales, J.) (same); Danierov v. Noem, 2026 WL 45288, at *2 (D.N.M.) (Gonzales, J.) (same). The Clerk’s Office has electronically served Respondents by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) using the Case Management and Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) system. (Doc. 2). The Clerk’s Office also returned Petitioner’s payment of $405, which is the filing fee for normal civil cases. The filing fee for habeas cases is only $5.00. Petitioner should pay the $5.00 fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis within thirty (30) days.

IT IS ORDERED that: 1. The United States Attorney’s Office must answer the Petition within ten (10) business days of entry of this Order.

2. If Petitioner wishes to file an optional reply, he must do so within seven (7) business days after the response is filed.

3. Petitioner shall pay the $5.00 filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis within thirty (30) days of entry of this Order.

4. The Clerk’s Office shall update CM/ECF to include the Respondents added by this Order.

/s/Kenneth J. Gonzales___________________ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE • Please note that this document has been electronically filed. To verify its authenticity, please refer to the Digital File Stamp on the NEF (Notice of Electronic Filing) accompanying this document.

Electronically filed documents can be found on the Court’s PACER public access system.