Lovepreet Singh v. Christopher Larose, Warden of Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: April 24, 2026
• Docket: 3:26-cv-01866
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LOVEPREET SINGH, Case No.: 26-CV-1866 JLS (BLM)

12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 13 v. AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, Warden of

Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al., 15 (ECF No. 6) Respondents. 16 17 18 Presently before the Court is Lovepreet Singh’s Amended Petition for a Writ of 19 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Pet.,” ECF No. 6). Also before the Court 20 is Respondents’ Return to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Ret.,” ECF No. 8). For the 21 reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS IN PART the Amended Petition for a Writ 22 of Habeas Corpus. 23 BACKGROUND 24 Petitioner, a citizen of India, alleges that he has been detained by the United States 25 Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) Immigration and Customs Enforcement 26 (“ICE”) division at the Otay Mesa Detention Center since September 12, 2025, when he 27 entered the United States. Pet. at 2. Petitioner received a credible fear interview, which 28 1 he passed, and then applied for asylum. Id. Petitioner is awaiting his final merits hearing, 2 which is scheduled for June 11, 2026. Id. If Petitioner loses, he plans on appealing. Id. 3 LEGAL STANDARD 4 A federal prisoner challenging the execution of his or her sentence, rather than the 5 legality of the sentence itself, may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the district of 6 his confinement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). The sole judicial 7 body able to review challenges to final orders of deportation, exclusion, or removal is the 8 court of appeals. See generally 8 U.S.C. § 1252; see also Alvarez–Barajas v. Gonzales, 9 418 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing REAL ID Act, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 10 231, § 106(a)). However, for claims challenging ancillary or collateral issues arising 11 independently from the removal process—for example, a claim of indefinite detention— 12 federal habeas corpus jurisdiction remains in the district court. Nadarajah v. Gonzales, 13 443 F.3d 1069, 1076 (9th Cir. 2006), abrogated on other grounds by Jennings v. Rodriguez, 14 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018); Alvarez v. Sessions, 338 F. Supp. 3d 1042, 1048–49 (N.D. Cal. 15 2018) (citations omitted). 16 DISCUSSION 17 “Neither the Ninth Circuit nor the Supreme Court have provided guidance regarding 18 the point at which an immigration detainee’s prolonged mandatory detention becomes 19 unconstitutional.” Amado v. United States Dep’t of Just., No. 25CV2687-LL(DDL), 2025 20 WL 3079052, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2025). However, “[n]early all district courts that 21 have considered [the constitutionality of prolonged mandatory detention] agree that 22 prolonged mandatory detention pending removal proceedings, without a bond hearing, 23 will—at some point—violate the right to due process.” Singh v. Barr, 400 F. Supp. 3d 24 1005 (S.D. Cal. 2019) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (cleaned up) 25 (collecting cases). In determining whether detention has become unreasonable, courts 26 evaluate factors including “the total length of detention to date, the likely duration of future 27 detention, and the delays in the removal proceedings caused by the petitioner and the 28 government.” Lopez v. Garland, 631 F. Supp. 3d 870, 879 (E.D. Cal. 2022). Some courts 1 also consider the conditions of detention and the likelihood that the removal proceedings 2 will result in a final order of removal. See, e.g, Sadeqi v. LaRose, 809 F. Supp. 3d 1090, 3 1094 (S.D. Cal. 2025). 4 The Court finds that Petitioner has established he is entitled to a bond hearing. 5 Petitioner’s length of detention, over seven months, without a bond hearing weighs in 6 Petitioner’s favor. Courts have found detention of similar lengths without a bond hearing 7 weighs towards a finding that detention has become unreasonable. See, e.g., Guatam v. 8 Corr. Corp of Am., No. 3:25-CV-3600-JES-DEB, 2026 WL 25846, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 9 2026) (finding that one-year detention weighed in favor of granting a bond hearing); 10 Sadeqi, 809 F. Supp. 3d at 1095 (finding that eleven month detention without a bond 11 hearing “absent meaningful rebuttal by [r]espondents” was unreasonable and violated due 12 process); Amado, 2025 WL 3079052, at *5 (“Courts have found detention over seven 13 months without a bond hearing weighs toward a finding that it is unreasonable.”). The 14 length of detention therefore favors Petitioner. 15 As to the likely duration of future detention, Petitioner argues that he “has reason to 16 anticipate significant future detention” since he has yet to have his merits hearing, at which 17 point his asylum petition will be decided, subject to an appeal process that could go on for 18 another undetermined amount of time. Pet. at 8–9. The Court agrees, since Respondents 19 “cannot predict with any degree of confidence when the BIA appeal will be resolved.” 20 Masood v. Barr, No. 19-CV-07623-JD, 2020 WL 95633, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2020). 21 Therefore, the likely duration of future detention weighs in Petitioner’s favor. 22 Delay in removal proceedings is neutral since the record does not suggest delay by 23 Respondents nor Petitioner. See generally Pet.; Ret. Balancing the discussed factors, the 24 Court concludes that Petitioner’s detention has become unreasonably prolonged, and 25 therefore, Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing. 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / I CONCLUSION 2 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART! Petitioner’s Amended 3 || Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 6), and ORDERS Respondents to provide 4 || Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing within fourteen (14) days before a neutral 5 ||immigration judge in which the government bears the burden of establishing by clear and 6 || convincing evidence that Petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk if released. 7 no hearing occurs within fourteen days of this Order, Petitioner shall be released from 8 || Respondents’ custody. 9 The Parties SHALL file a Joint Status Report by May 14, 2026, informing the Court 10 the outcome of the hearing. The Clerk SHALL close the file. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: April 24, 2026 ft 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 a7lo0002~2~— 2g ||! The Court declines to address the issues raised by Petitioner regarding the neutrality of immigration courts generally.