Pardeep Kumar v. Warden, Golden State Annex Detention Facility, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 7 8 PARDEEP KUMAR No. 1:26-cv-05057-KES-EGC (HC) (A-Number: 226-069-486), 9 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT 10 OF HABEAS CORPUS AND REQUIRING v. IMMEDIATE RELEASE 11 WARDEN, Golden State Annex Detention Doc. 1 12 Facility, et al., 13 Respondents. 14

15 Petitioner Pardeep Kumar is an immigration detainee proceeding with a petition for writ 16 of habeas corpus and motion for temporary restraining order. Docs. 1, 3. The Court has 17 previously addressed the legal issues raised by the petition. See, e.g., Luis Alberto R.C. v. 18 Murray, 817 F. Supp. 3d 917 (E.D. Cal. 2025); Elmer Joel M. C. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV- 19 01622-KES-CDB (HC), 2025 WL 3501200 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2025); W.V.S.M. v. Wofford, No. 20 1:25-CV-01489-KES-HBK (HC), 2025 WL 3236521 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2025); Bilal A. v. 21 Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01715-KES-HBK (HC), 2025 WL 3648366 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2025); 22 Marina V.N. v. Robbins, No. 1:25-CV-01845-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 3701960 (E.D. Cal. 23 Dec. 21, 2025). 24 The Court set a briefing schedule on the petition and ordered respondents to show cause as 25 to whether there are any factual or legal issues in this case that distinguish it from the Court’s 26 prior orders and that would justify denying the petition. Doc. 5. Respondents appear to 27 acknowledge that this case raises the same legal issue as the cases mentioned above, but they 28 1 argue that any relief should be limited to a bond hearing, rather than immediate release, primarily 2 because petitioner allegedly violated certain terms of the “Alternatives to Detention” monitoring 3 program in which he was enrolled. Doc. 8 at 1. Respondents do not explain what those 4 violations were, how many violations there were, or when they occurred. See id. 5 At any rate, the alleged violations do not constitute a pertinent distinction between this 6 case and the Court’s prior cases. Respondents’ own records show that, after the alleged 7 violations, petitioner reported as requested for a scheduled check-in at an ICE office, where ICE 8 arrested him. See Doc. 8-1 at 2. While the alleged violations may be relevant to a neutral 9 decisionmaker’s determination as to whether petitioner is entitled to bond, they do not eliminate 10 petitioner’s due process right to a such determination. See E.A. T.-B. v. Wamsley, 795 F. Supp. 3d 11 1316, 1322 (W.D. Wash. 2025). In addition, courts typically require evidence of urgent concerns 12 or an especially strong government interest to justify a post-deprivation, rather than a pre- 13 deprivation, hearing. See Guillermo M. R. v. Kaiser, 791 F. Supp. 3d 1021, 1036 (N.D. Cal. 14 2025); United States v. James Daniel Good Real Prop., 510 U.S. 43, 53, 59–61 (1993) (“We 15 tolerate some exceptions to the general rule requiring predeprivation notice and hearing, but only 16 in extraordinary situations where some valid governmental interest is at stake that justifies 17 postponing the hearing until after the event[,]” such as “executive urgency.” (internal quotations 18 omitted)). Respondents do not identify any urgent concerns that would warrant a post- 19 deprivation, rather than pre-deprivation, hearing in this case. 20 Respondents also argue that there are other “flight-risk indicators” in this case, such as the 21 fact that petitioner entered the United States without inspection and filed his asylum application 22 six months after entering—or, in respondents’ words, that he “delayed seeking relief.” Doc. 8 at 23 1, 4. These arguments are not persuasive. With respect to the fact that petitioner entered without 24 inspection, respondents knew that fact when they released him from detention the first time in 25 May 2024. See Doc. 8-1. And with respect to the fact that he filed his asylum application several 26 months after entering the United States, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B) provides that a noncitizen has 27 one year after arrival in the United States to file an application for asylum and petitioner filed his 28 application well within that time frame. The timing of petitioner’s asylum application does not 1 | support respondents’ argument. 2 As respondents have not identified any pertinent factual or legal issues in this case that 3 | would distinguish it from the Court’s prior decisions in Luis Alberto R.C. v. Murray, 817 F. Supp. 4 | 3d 917 (ED. Cal. 2025), Elmer Joel M. C. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01622-KES-CDB (HC), 5 | 2025 WL 3501200 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2025), Bilal A. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01715-KES-HBK 6 | (HC), 2025 WL 3648366 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2025), WV.S.M. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01489- 7 | KES-HBK (HC), 2025 WL 3236521 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2025), and Marina V.N. v. Robbins, No. 8 | 1:25-CV-01845-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 3701960 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2025), the petition for 9 | writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED, for the reasons addressed in those prior orders. 10 Respondents are ORDERED to release petitioner Pardeep Kumar (A-Number: 226-069- 11 | 486) immediately. Respondents are ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re-detaining 12 | petitioner unless they demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence at a pre-deprivation bond 13 | hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, that petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community 14 | such that his physical custody is legally justified. 15 Respondents are ORDERED to provide petitioner with a copy of this Order upon his 16 | release. 17 The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and enter judgment for petitioner. The 18 | Clerk is directed to serve Golden State Annex with a copy of this Order. 19 99 | IT IS SO ORDERED. _ 21 Dated: _ July 9, 2026 4h | | UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23 24 25 26 27 28