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

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 13, 2026
• Docket: 1:26-cv-01407
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 MANJEET SINGH, No. 1:26-cv-01407-KES-SKO (HC) 9 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT 10 v. OF HABEAS CORPUS 11 TODD LYONS, Acting Director, Doc. 1 Immigration and Customs Enforcement; 12 SERGIO ALBARRAN, Field Office 13 Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, San Francisco Field Office, 14 Immigration and Customs Enforcement; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department 15 of Homeland Security; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 16 SECURITY; CHRISTOPHER CHESTNUT, 17 Warden of California City Detention Center; and PAMELA BONDI, U.S. Attorney 18 General, 19 Respondents. 20 21 Petitioner Manjeet Singh is an immigration detainee proceeding with a petition for writ of 22 habeas corpus and motion for temporary restraining order. Docs. 1, 2. The Court has previously 23 addressed the legal issues raised by claims one and three of the petition. See, e.g., Elmer Joel M. 24 C. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01622-KES-CDB (HC), 2025 WL 3501200 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2025); 25 Clene C.D. v. Robbins, No. 1:25-CV-01463-KES-SKO (HC), 2026 WL 84302 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 26 2026); W.V.S.M. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01489-KES-HBK (HC), 2025 WL 3236521 (E.D. Cal. 27 Nov. 19, 2025); Bilal A. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01715-KES-HBK (HC), 2025 WL 3648366 28 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2025); Marina V.N. v. Robbins, No. 1:25-CV-01845-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 1 WL 3701960 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2025). 2 The Court set a briefing schedule on the petition and ordered respondents to show cause as 3 to whether there are any factual or legal issues in this case that distinguish it from the Court’s 4 prior orders and that would justify denying the petition. Doc. 6. While respondents oppose the 5 petition, they state that “[t]his matter is not substantively distinguishable from the Court’s prior 6 precedent.” Doc. 7 at 2. 7 Respondents allege that petitioner violated certain terms of the “Alternatives to Detention” 8 monitoring program in which he was enrolled. Doc.7 at 2. But the record shows that, after the 9 alleged violations, petitioner reported as requested for a scheduled check-in at an ICE office, 10 where ICE arrested him. See Doc. 7-3, Ex. 3 at 3. While the alleged violations may be relevant 11 to a neutral decisionmaker’s determination as to whether petitioner is entitled to bond, they do not 12 eliminate petitioner’s due process right to such a determination. See E.A. T.-B. v. Wamsley, 795 13 F. Supp. 3d 1316, 1322 (W.D. Wash. 2025).1 14 As respondents have not identified any pertinent factual or legal issues in this case that 15 would distinguish it from the Court’s prior decisions in Elmer Joel M. C. v. Wofford, No. 1:25- 16 CV-01622-KES-CDB (HC), 2025 WL 3501200 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2025), Clene C.D. v. Robbins, 17 No. 1:25-CV-01463-KES-SKO (HC), 2026 WL 84302 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2026), Bilal A. v. 18 Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01715-KES-HBK (HC), 2025 WL 3648366 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2025), 19 W.V.S.M. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01489-KES-HBK (HC), 2025 WL 3236521 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 20 19, 2025), and Marina V.N. v. Robbins, No. 1:25-CV-01845-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 3701960 21 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2025), the petition for writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED as to claims one 22 23 1 Courts typically require evidence of urgent concerns or an especially strong government interest 24 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 25 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 26 governmental interest is at stake that justifies postponing the hearing until after the event[,]” such 27 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. 28 1 | and three, for the reasons addressed in those prior orders.” 2 Respondents are ORDERED to release petitioner immediately. Respondents are 3 | ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re-detaining petitioner unless they demonstrate, by clear 4 | and convincing evidence at a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, that 5 | petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community such that his physical custody is legally 6 || justified. 7 The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and enter judgment for petitioner. 8 g | ISSO ORDERED. _ 10 Dated: _ March 13, 2026 4h 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Qe. aod The Court need not address petitioner’s other claims as petitioner is entitled to the relief he 28 | seeks based on the Court’s ruling on claims one and three.