Mao-Sheng Lin v. Warden, Orange County Jail, et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: January 29, 2026
• Docket: 1:25-cv-09039
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: _________________ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 1/29/2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- X : MAO-SHENG LIN., : : Plaintiff, : 1:25-cv-9039-GHW : -v- : ORDER : WARDEN, ORANGE COUNTY JAIL, et al., : : Defendants. : : ----------------------------------------------------------------- X GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge: Mr. Lin, proceeding pro se, filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on October 30, 2025. Dkt. No. 1. The Court ordered the Government to answer on November 3, 2025 and set a briefing schedule on the petition. Dkt. No. 4. The Government filed its response on January 2, 2026. Dkt. No. 7. On January 29, 2026, an individual named Melina Johnson, a self-described “legal consultant,” filed a motion for emergency relief. Dkt. No. 11. Ms. Johnson sought an order releasing Petitioner or, alternatively, an order requiring Respondents to hold a prompt custody hearing. Id. The request for emergency relief is denied. Ms. Johnson has not entered a notice of appearance in this case as Mr. Lin’s attorney or otherwise demonstrated why she should be permitted to represent Mr. Lin in these proceedings. The Court set a briefing schedule on the petition, and the Government has answered. Mr. Lin has an opportunity to respond. The Court notes that there are lawyers who provide pro bono legal services to individuals in immigration proceedings. One resource for identifying such counsel is the City Bar Justice Center. In the event that Petitioner wishes to obtain legal counsel to represent him in this matter, the Court extends his deadline to file a reply in further support of his petition to February 15, 2026. The Court will determine what relief, if any, is appropriate after the deadline for Mr. Lin to file his reply. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate to motion pending at Dkt. No. 11 and to mail a copy of this order to Petitioner. SO ORDERED. Dated: January 29, 2026 New York, New York li ey wd United States District Judge