Manjeet Singh v. Todd Lyons, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Sergio Albarran, Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, San Francisco Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; Christopher Chestnut, Warden of California City Detention Center; and Pamela Bondi, U.S. Attorney General

Opinion

MANJEET SINGH, No. 1:26-cv-01407-KES-SKO (HC) Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT v. OF HABEAS CORPUS TODD LYONS, Acting Director, Doc. 1 Immigration and Customs Enforcement; SERGIO ALBARRAN, Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, San Francisco Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; CHRISTOPHER CHESTNUT, Warden of California City Detention Center; and PAMELA BONDI, U.S. Attorney General, Respondents. Petitioner Manjeet Singh is an immigration detainee proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus and motion for temporary restraining order. Docs. 1, 2. The Court has previously addressed the legal issues raised by claims one and three of the petition. See, e.g., Elmer Joel M. C. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01622-KES-CDB (HC), 2025 WL 3501200 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2025); Clene C.D. v. Robbins, No. 1:25-CV-01463-KES-SKO (HC), 2026 WL 84302 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2026); W.V.S.M. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01489-KES-HBK (HC), 2025 WL 3236521 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2025); Bilal A. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01715-KES-HBK (HC), 2025 WL 3648366 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2025); Marina V.N. v. Robbins, No. 1:25-CV-01845-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 3701960 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2025). The Court set a briefing schedule on the petition and ordered respondents to show cause as to whether there are any factual or legal issues in this case that distinguish it from the Court’s prior orders and that would justify denying the petition. Doc. 6. While respondents oppose the petition, they state that “[t]his matter is not substantively distinguishable from the Court’s prior precedent.” Doc. 7 at 2. Respondents allege that petitioner violated certain terms of the “Alternatives to Detention” monitoring program in which he was enrolled. Doc.7 at 2. But the record shows that, after the alleged violations, petitioner reported as requested for a scheduled check-in at an ICE office, where ICE arrested him. See Doc. 7-3, Ex. 3 at 3. While the alleged violations may be relevant to a neutral decisionmaker’s determination as to whether petitioner is entitled to bond, they do not eliminate petitioner’s due process right to such a determination. See E.A. T.-B. v. Wamsley, 795 F. Supp. 3d 1316, 1322 (W.D. Wash. 2025).1 As respondents have not identified any pertinent factual or legal issues in this case that would distinguish it from the Court’s prior decisions in Elmer Joel M. C. v. Wofford, No. 1:25- CV-01622-KES-CDB (HC), 2025 WL 3501200 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2025), Clene C.D. v. Robbins, No. 1:25-CV-01463-KES-SKO (HC), 2026 WL 84302 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2026), Bilal A. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01715-KES-HBK (HC), 2025 WL 3648366 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2025), W.V.S.M. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01489-KES-HBK (HC), 2025 WL 3236521 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2025), and Marina V.N. v. Robbins, No. 1:25-CV-01845-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 3701960 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2025), the petition for writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED as to claims one 1 Courts typically require evidence of urgent concerns or an especially strong government interest to justify a post-deprivation, rather than a pre-deprivation, hearing. See Guillermo M. R. v. Kaiser, 791 F. Supp. 3d 1021, 1036 (N.D. Cal. 2025); United States v. James Daniel Good Real Prop., 510 U.S. 43, 53, 59–61 (1993) (“We tolerate some exceptions to the general rule requiring predeprivation notice and hearing, but only in extraordinary situations where some valid governmental interest is at stake that justifies postponing the hearing until after the event[,]” such as “executive urgency.” (internal quotations omitted)). Respondents do not identify any urgent concerns that would warrant a post-deprivation, rather than pre-deprivation, hearing in this case. and three, for the reasons addressed in those prior orders.” Respondents are ORDERED to release petitioner immediately. Respondents are ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re-detaining petitioner unless they demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence at a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, that petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community such that his physical custody is legally justified. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and enter judgment for petitioner. g | ISSO ORDERED. _ Dated: _ March 13, 2026 4h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Qe. aod The Court need not address petitioner’s other claims as petitioner is entitled to the relief he seeks based on the Court’s ruling on claims one and three.