Pardeep Sharma v. Gregory J. Archambault, et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: January 29, 2026
• Docket: 3:26-cv-00513
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 PARDEEP SHARMA, Case No. 26-cv-00513-BAS-SBC

11 Petitioner, ORDER: 12 v. (1) REQUIRING THE 13 GREGORY J. ARCHAMBRAULT, et al., GOVERNMENT TO RESPOND 14 Respondents. TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (ECF No. 1); 15

16 (2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION 17 FOR ORDER TO SHOW 18 CAUSE (ECF No. 2)

19 (3) SETTING BRIEFING 20 SCHEDULE ON MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE 21 RELIEF (ECF No. 3); AND 22 (4) PROVIDING NOTICE UNDER 23 RULE 65(a)(2) 24 25 26 On November 27, 2025, Petitioner Pardeep Sharma filed a Petition for Writ of 27 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in Case No. 25-cv-03335-BAS-DDL. 28 Petitioner claimed that he was being detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement 1 without a bond determination in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its associated 2 regulations, as well as the Fifth Amendment. After briefing, on December 18, 2025, the 3 Court granted the Petition. The Court ordered the Respondents to provide Petitioner with 4 a bond hearing within fourteen days. 5 On January 27, 2026, Petitioner filed the present action, which again seeks relief 6 under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Petition shows that an Immigration Judge denied bond in a 7 written decision dated January 26, 2026. (Pet. Ex. E.) Petitioner argues the denial of bond 8 in his circumstances violates the Due Process Clause. (Id. ¶¶ 53–60.) 9 In addition, Petitioner filed a Motion for Order to Show Cause. (ECF No. 2.) 10 Petitioner asks the Court to require the Government to respond to the Petition within three 11 days under the procedures set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 12 Further, Petitioner filed an Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 13 (“Motion for Injunctive Relief”). (ECF No. 3.) Petitioner asks the Court to order his 14 immediate release from ICE custody. (Id.) 15 Finally, on January 28, 2026, Petitioner filed a Supplemental Brief in support of his 16 Petition and Motion for Injunctive Relief. (ECF No. 4.) Petitioner states his final asylum 17 merits hearing is scheduled for February 3, 2026, and he again seeks immediate release. 18 (Id.) 19 Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds summary dismissal is unwarranted at 20 this time. See Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary 21 dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, 22 palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”). Therefore, the Court will order the 23 Government to respond to the Petition. However, to promote the uniform treatment of 24 similarly situated Section 2241 petitions challenging immigration custody, the Court finds 25 it appropriate to require the Government to respond to the Petition within seven days of the 26 date of this Order. 27 Turning to the Motion for Injunctive Relief, the Court denies the ex parte request for 28 a temporary restraining order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). “While temporary restraining | |}orders may be heard in true ex parte fashion (1.e., without notice to an opposing party), the 2 || Court will do so only in extraordinary circumstances. The Court’s strong preference is for 3 ||the opposing party to be served and afforded a reasonable opportunity to file an 4 ||opposition.” Standing Order for Civil Cases § 9; see also Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. 5 || Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Loc. No. 70 of Alameda Cnty., 415 U.S. 423, 438- 6 ||39 (1974) (discussing ex parte temporary restraining orders and their “stringent 7 restrictions”); accord Reno Air Racing Ass’n, Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th 8 || Cir. 2006) (same). Thus, the Court will instead consider the Motion for Injunctive Relief 9 || under Rule 65(a) and provide the Government with an opportunity to respond. 10 Finally, the Court provides notice to the parties that it intends to consolidate the 11 || Motion for Injunctive Relief with a determination on the merits under Rule 65(a)(2). See 12 || Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2); see also Slidewaters LLC v. Wash. State Dep’t of Lab. & Indus., 13 ||4 F.4th 747, 759 (9th Cir. 2021) (noting the court can invoke Rule 65(a)(2) by giving “clear 14 || and unambiguous notice’). 15 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 16 1. The Government must file a response to the Petition and the Motion for 17 ||Injunctive Relief no later than February 5, 2026. The Government’s response must 18 ||address the allegations in the Petition and must include any documents relevant to the 19 || determination of the issues raised in the Petition. 20 2. Petitioner may file a reply in support of his Petition and the Motion for 21 || Injunctive Relief no later than February 12, 2026. 22 3. Given the Court’s briefing schedule, the Court GRANTS IN PART and 23 || DENIES IN PART the Motion for Order to Show Cause. (ECF No. 2.) 24 4. The Clerk of Court shall provide the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s 25 || Office with a copy of the Petition (ECF No. 1), the Motion for Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 26 ||3), and this Order. 27 IT IS SO ORDERED. 28 || DATED: January 29, 2026 yatta Bahar _, Hen. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge