Liang v. Genalo
- Rochon
- 1:25-cv-09980
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Liang v. Genalo, Judge Rochon recorded the petition’s email receipt time and directed termination of the pending motion.
The petitioner, the government, and the Clerk of Court were affected by the order concerning the petition’s filing time and termination of the pending motion.
What happened
In Liang v. Genalo, the government asked the court to determine the exact time a next friend emailed the petitioner’s habeas petition on December 1, 2025. The government said that timing could affect whether this court was the proper venue for the case.
The court was informed that its Pro Se Intake Unit received the petition by email at 9:56 p.m. on December 1, 2025. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion at Docket No. 3.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon’s order resolved the filing-time request and did not decide the habeas petition’s underlying claims or state whether venue was proper.
The detailed version
- Liang v. Genalo · No. 1:25-cv-09980
- Rochon
- Dec. 3, 2025
Background
A next friend filed a habeas petition for the petitioner on December 1, 2025. The government asked the court to docket the exact time the petition was received, including any email transmitting the petition, so the government could evaluate whether venue was proper. The government explained that habeas jurisdiction for a challenge to present physical custody generally depends on the petitioner’s location when the petition is filed.
Court’s action
The court was informed by the Clerk of Court that the Pro Se Intake Unit received the petition by email at 9:56 p.m. on Monday, December 1, 2025. The court then directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion at Docket No. 3.
Effect of the order
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon’s order addressed the petition’s receipt time and the pending motion’s docket status. The excerpt does not state that the court granted or denied the government’s request, decide whether venue was proper, or reach the merits of the habeas petition.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.