Gurdasbir Singh v. Markwayne Mullin, et al.

Opinion

GURDASBIR SINGH (A No. 246-765- Case No. 1:26-cv-03451-JLT-EGC 699), ORDER GRANTING THE PETITION FOR Petitioner, HABEAS CORPUS; DENYING REQUUEST FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER v. AS MOOT; AND DIRECTING RESPONDENTS TO PROVIDE A MARKWAYNE MULLIN, et al., SUBSTANTIVE BOND HEARING1 Respondents. (Docs. 1, 2.)

Before the Court is Gurdasbir Singh’s request for a temporary restraining order (Doc. 2), filed in conjunction with his petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his ongoing detention. (Doc. 1.) The government filed a response to the TRO and the underlying petition, asserting only that the petitioner is subject to mandatory detention, a legal position that this Court has rejected repeatedly. (Doc. 9.) Thus, the Court GRANTS the petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Constitution guarantees that the writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004)

1 The respondents reported that no further briefing was requested as to the underlying petition. (Doc. 9 at 1.) Because the Court orders Respondents to provide Petitioner with a substantive bond hearing and (citing U.S. Const., Art I, § 9, cl. 2). Section 2241 of Title 28 confers the federal courts with the power to issue writs of habeas corpus to persons “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This includes challenges by non-citizens in immigration-related matters. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001); see also A.A. R. P. v. Trump, 145 S. Ct. 1364, 1367 (2025). Petitioner is citizen of India who entered the United States without inspection on or about April 1, 2023, where he was encountered by federal immigration officials near San Luis, Arizona. (Doc. 1 at 3.) Following his initial processing, Respondents issued Petitioner a Notice to Appear (NTA) under §240 of Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) and released the Petitioner on his own recognizance under §236 of INA. (Doc. 1-3.) Petitioner alleges he has “no criminal history whatsoever” and remained compliant with the laws of the United States, including reporting to all scheduled check-ins with ICE. (Doc. 1 at 4.) In February 2026, Petitioner reported to the Fresno ICE office where he was placed on the GPS tracking through an app on his phone. (Id.) He was required to upload a weekly selfie every Thursday and remain home for a 12-hour window (6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.) for potential home visits. (Id.) Petitioner alleges that he remained compliant with these check-ins. (Id.) On April 19, 2026, Petitioner was detained after missing several biometrics check-ins on February 29, 2026, March 12, 2026, and April 9, 2026. (Doc. 9-1 at 10.) He is detained at the Golden State Annex Detention Facility in McFarland, California. The government filed an opposition to the petition and issuance of preliminary injunctive relief, arguing that Petitioner’s detention is “mandatory” under expedited removal procedures set forth at 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). (See generally Doc. 9.) Respondents offer little to rebut Petitioner’s due process claim and do not provide any justification for detaining Petitioner and make no effort to distinguish this current case from the numerous cases issued by the undersigned, finding this legal position to be incorrect and the detention unlawful. J.S.H.M. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01309-JLT-SKO (HC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2025); Ortiz Donis v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-CV-01228-JLT-SAB (HC), 2025 WL 32879514 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2025); M.R.R. v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-CV-01517-JLT (HC), 2025 WL 3265446 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2025); Espinoza v. Kaiser, No. 1:25-CV-01101 JLT SKO, 2025 WL 2581185 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2025); Aguilera v. Albarran, No. 1:25-CV-01619 JLT SAB, 2025 WL 3485016 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2025); Garcia v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-CV-01907-JLT-CDB, 2025 WL 3771348 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2025); Carlos v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-CV-00007-JLT-SKO (HC), 2026 WL 145889 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2026). Therefore, the Court finds that Petitioner’s re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS: 1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED for the reasons stated in the orders cited above; 2. Within 14 days of the date of service of this order, unless Petitioner consents to a later date, Respondent SHALL provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge that complies with the requirements set forth in Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011), and where “the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that [Petitioner] is a flight risk or a danger to the community to justify denial of bond,” Id. at 1203. In the event Petitioner is “determined not to be a danger to the community and not to be so great a flight risk as to require detention without bond,” the immigration judge should consider Petitioner’s financial circumstances and alternative conditions of release. Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 1000 (9th Cir. 2017). If Respondents fail to provide a timely bond hearing in accordance with this order, Respondents are ordered to immediately release Petitioner; 3. At least 72 hours before the scheduled hearing, the Petitioner SHALL receive notice of the hearing. He SHALL have the right to be represented by counsel at the hearing, and he SHALL be entitled to appear at the hearing. If his counsel has filed an appearance in the immigration proceedings, at least 72 hours before the hearing, counsel SHALL receive notice of the scheduled hearing; /// /// /// ] 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and enter judgment for Petitioner. Dated: _ May 19, 2026 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1]