Jot Parkash Singh v. Warden of Imperial Regional Detention Facility, et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: January 30, 2026
• Docket: 3:26-cv-00557
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOT PARKASH SINGH, Case No.: 3:26-cv-00557-CAB-BLM

12 Petitioner, ORDER TO RESPOND 13 v. 14 WARDEN OF IMPERIAL REGIONAL DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 15 Respondents. 16

17 Petitioner Jot Parkash Singh (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, [Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”),] and a motion for temporary 19 restraining order, [Doc. No. 2 (“TRO”)]. Petitioner claims prolonged detention by 20 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) since December 2025 in violation of the 21 Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Fifth 22 Amendment. [Petition at 11–14.] 23 Having reviewed the petition, the Court finds summary dismissal is unwarranted at 24 this time. See Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary 25 dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, 26 palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”). Therefore, the Court will order a 27 response to the Petition. 28 1 Turning to the TRO, Petitioner requests that the Court “order Respondents to cease 2 any ongoing action and refrain from taking any additional actions toward effectuating 3 Petitioner’s removal from the United States, until the Court has adjudicated his petition 4 and complaint.” [TRO at 2.] While temporary restraining orders may be heard in true ex 5 parte fashion (i.e., without notice to an opposing party), the Court’s strong preference is 6 for the opposing party to be served and afforded a reasonable opportunity to file an 7 opposition. See Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers 8 Loc. No. 70 of Alameda Cnty., 415 U.S. 423, 438–39 (1974) (discussing ex parte temporary 9 restraining orders and their “stringent restrictions”); accord Reno Air Racing Ass’n, Inc. v. 10 McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006) (same); Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). This is 11 particularly true here where Petitioner’s motion for TRO concludes without any supporting 12 evidence that Respondents “seek to remove Petitioner . . . without affording him the 13 procedural protections guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment” or that he “continues to face 14 an imminent threat of removal.” [TRO at 2.] 15 The Court instead provides notice to the parties that it intends to consolidate the TRO 16 with a determination on the merits under Rule 65(a)(2). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2); see 17 also Slidewaters LLC v. Wash. State Dep’t of Lab. & Indus., 4 F.4th 747, 759 (9th Cir. 18 2021) (noting the court can invoke Rule 65(a)(2) by giving “clear and unambiguous 19 notice”). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 20 1. Respondents shall file a response by February 6, 2026. The response must 21 address the allegations in the Petition and the motion for TRO and must include any 22 documents relevant to the determination of the issues raised. 23 2. Petitioner may file a reply by February 10, 2026. 24 3. To maintain the status quo, Respondents, their officers, agents, servants, 25 employees, attorneys, and other persons who act in concert or participation with 26 27 28 1 ||Respondents SHALL NOT transfer Petitioner outside of the Southern District of 2 California pending the Court’s resolution of the Petition.! 3 4. The Clerk of Court shall provide the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s 4 || Office with a copy of the Petition and this Order. 5 Itis SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: January 30, 2026 (yge— 7 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo g United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ' See Doe v. Bondi, Case No. 3:25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) 27 (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether [they have] 8 subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from the court.”’) (collecting cases).