Gurpreet Singh v. Tonya Andrews, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GURPREET SINGH, Case No. 1:26-cv-02227-JLT-FJS 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS AND DIRECTING 13 v. RESPONDENTS TO PROVIDE A SUBSTANTIVE BOND HEARING2 14 TONYA ANDREWS, et al.,1 (Docs. 1, 2.) 15 Respondents. 16 17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 Before the Court for decision is Gurpreet Singh’s request for a temporary restraining 19 order (Doc. 2), filed in conjunction with his petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought under 28 20 1 Respondents move to strike and dismiss all unlawfully named officials. (Doc. 8 at 2.) “[L]ongstanding 21 practice confirms that in habeas challenges to present physical confinement—‘core challenges’—the default rule is that the proper respondent is the warden of the facility where the prisoner is being held . . . 22 .” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 435 (2004). The Ninth Circuit has “affirm[ed] the application of the immediate custodian and district of confinement rules to core habeas petitions filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 23 §2241, including those filed by immigrant detainees.” Doe v. Garland, 109 F.4th 1188, 1199 (9th Cir. 2024). Although Doe held that “Padilla set forth a clear rule requiring core habeas petitioners challenging 24 their present physical confinement to name their immediate custodian, the warden of the facility where they are detained, as the respondent to their petition,” 109 F.4th at 1197, Doe did not necessarily preclude 25 naming more than one respondent so long as the immediate custodian is named. Given that Petitioner has named her immediate custodian as a Respondent, the Court declines to dismiss all the remaining named 26 Respondents. 27 2 The respondents reported that no further briefing was requested as to the underlying petition. (Doc. 8 at 28 1.) Because the Court orders Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing and grants the 1 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his ongoing detention. (Doc. 1.) The government filed a response to 2 the TRO and the underlying petition, asserting only that the petitioner is subject to mandatory 3 detention, a legal position that this Court has rejected repeatedly. (Doc. 8.) Thus, the Court 4 GRANTS the petition for writ of habeas corpus. 5 II. LEGAL STANDARD 6 The Constitution guarantees that the writ of habeas corpus is “available to every 7 individual detained within the United States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) 8 (citing U.S. Const., Art I, § 9, cl. 2). Section 2241 of Title 28 confers the federal courts with the 9 power to issue writs of habeas corpus to persons “in custody in violation of the Constitution or 10 laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This includes challenges by non-citizens 11 in immigration-related matters. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001); see also A.A. 12 R. P. v. Trump, 145 S. Ct. 1364, 1367 (2025). 13 III. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 14 Petitioner is an asylum seeker from India who entered the United States on or about July 15 4, 2023, where he was encountered by federal immigration officials. (Doc. 1 at 4.) On July 17, 16 2023, DHS released Petitioner on interim parole, subject to supervision conditions including 17 ATD monitoring and routine ICE reporting. (Id.) On that same date, DHS served Petitioner with 18 a Notice to Appear charging him under INA § 212(a)(6)(A)(i) as a noncitizen present without 19 admission or parole. (Id.) On April 18, 2025, Petitioner was arrested for a felony violation of Hit 20 and Run causing death or injury in violation of California Vehicle Code § 20001(a). (Doc. 8 at 21 3.)3 On March 17, 2026, Petitioner was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and 22 is currently being detained at the Golden State Annex Detention Facility in McFarland, 23 California. (Doc. 8 at 2.) 24 The government filed an opposition to the petition and issuance of preliminary injunctive 25 relief, arguing that Petitioner’s detention is “mandatory” under expedited removal procedures set 26 forth at 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). (See generally Doc. 8.) Respondents offer little to rebut 27 Petitioner’s due process claim and do not provide any justification for detaining Petitioner and

28 1 make no effort to distinguish this current case from the numerous cases issued by the 2 undersigned, finding this legal position to be incorrect and the detention unlawful. J.S.H.M. v. 3 Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01309-JLT-SKO (HC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2025); Ortiz Donis v. 4 Chestnut, No. 1:25-CV-01228-JLT-SAB (HC), 2025 WL 32879514 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2025); 5 M.R.R. v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-CV-01517-JLT (HC), 2025 WL 3265446 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 6 2025); Espinoza v. Kaiser, No. 1:25-CV-01101 JLT SKO, 2025 WL 2581185 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 7 2025); Aguilera v. Albarran, No. 1:25-CV-01619 JLT SAB, 2025 WL 3485016 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 8 4, 2025); Garcia v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-CV-01907-JLT-CDB, 2025 WL 3771348 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9 31, 2025); Carlos v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-CV-00007-JLT-SKO (HC), 2026 WL 145889 (E.D. Cal. 10 Jan. 20, 2026). Therefore, the Court finds that Petitioner’s re-detention without a pre-deprivation 11 hearing violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Even still, because there is at 12 least a colorable basis for his arrest, the Court ORDERS: 13 1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED for the reasons stated in the 14 orders cited above; 15 2. Within 14 days of the date of service of this order, unless Petitioner consents to a 16 later date, Respondent SHALL provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing before an 17 immigration judge that complies with the requirements set forth in Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 18 1196 (9th Cir. 2011), and where “the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence 19 that [Petitioner] is a flight risk or a danger to the community to justify denial of bond,” id. at 20 1203. In the event Petitioner is “determined not to be a danger to the community and not to be so 21 great a flight risk as to require detention without bond,” the immigration judge should consider 22 Petitioner’s financial circumstances and alternative conditions of release. Hernandez v. Sessions, 23 872 F.3d 976, 1000 (9th Cir. 2017). If Respondents fail to provide a timely bond hearing in 24 accordance with this order, Respondents are ordered to immediately release Petitioner. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and enter judgment for 2 | Petitioner. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 | Dated: _ April 2, 2026 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28