Ajay Kumar v. Kristi Noem, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AJAY KUMAR, No. 1:26-cv-01148-DJC-AC 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 KRISTI NOEM, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner Ajay Kumar is an immigration detainee proceeding with a Petition for 18 Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF 19 No. 2). The Court has previously addressed the legal issues raised in Count 2 of the 20 Petition. See Garcia Mariagua v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01744-DJC-CSK, 2025 WL 21 3551700 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 202); Ortega v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-01663-DJC-CKD, 2025 22 WL 3511914 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2025); Lopez v. Lyons, 2025 WL 3124116, No. 2:25-cv- 23 03174-DJC-CKD (E.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2025). 24 The Court informed the parties that it intended to rule directly on the petition 25 and ordered respondents to show cause as to whether there are any factual or legal 26 issues in this case that distinguish it from the Court’s prior orders. (ECF No. 7.) 27 Respondents identify that Petitioner was arrested shortly prior to his present 28 detention. (ECF No. 12 at 2.) Respondents otherwise state that they “do not have 1 | legal arguments to distinguish this case from prior orders issued by the Court, nor do 2 | Respondents find material factual differences between this case and those identified 3 | bythe Court.” (/d.) Neither party objected to the Court ruling directly on the merits of 4 | the petition. 5 Accordingly, as Respondents have not made any new legal arguments and 6 | have not identified any factual or legal issues in this case that would distinguish it from 7 | the Court's prior decisions cited above, IT |S HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for 8 | Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED as to Count 2, for the reasons stated 9 | in those prior orders.' 10 Within five (5) days of this Order, Respondents shall afford Petitioner Ajay 11 | Kumar a constitutionally adequate bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) before 12 | anlmmigration Judge. The Government shall bear the burden of establishing, by 13 | clear and convincing evidence, that Petitioner poses a danger to the community or 14 | risk of flight, and Petitioner shall be allowed to have counsel present. 15 The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case and enter judgment for 16 | Petitioner. This Order resolves all pending motions. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 | Dated: _February 17, 2026 “Daniel A CoD tto— Hon. Daniel alabretta 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 | In the interests of judicial economy, the Court declines to address the remaining grounds for relief in 28 the Petition.