Pardeep Sharma v. Jeremy Casey, et al.

S.D. California

Pardeep Sharma v. Jeremy Casey, et al.

DecidedDecember 1, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-03335

StatusUnknown

This text of Pardeep Sharma v. Jeremy Casey, et al. (Pardeep Sharma v. Jeremy Casey, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pardeep Sharma v. Jeremy Casey, et al., (S.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 PARDEEP SHARMA, Case No. 25-cv-03335-BAS-DDL

14 Petitioner, ORDER: 15 v. (1) REQUIRING THE 16 JEREMY CASEY, et al., GOVERNMENT TO RESPOND 17 Respondents. TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (ECF No. 1); 18 AND 19 (2) GRANTING IN PART AND 20 DENYING IN PART MOTION 21 FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (ECF No. 2) 22

23 24 On November 27, 2025, Petitioner Pardeep Sharma filed a Petition for Writ of 25 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) In his Petition, Petitioner 26 claims that he is being detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in violation of 27 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its associated regulations, as well as the Fifth Amendment. (Id.) 28 1 In addition, Petitioner filed a Motion for Order to Show Cause. (ECF No. 2.) 2 || Petitioner asks the Court to require the Government to respond to the Petition within three 3 || days under the procedures set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 4 Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds summary dismissal is unwarranted at 5 ||this time. See Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary 6 || dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, 7 || palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”). Therefore, the Court will order the 8 ||Government to respond to the Petition. However, to promote the uniform treatment of 9 || similarly situated Section 2241 petitions challenging immigration custody, the Court finds 10 appropriate to require the Government to respond to the Petition within seven days of 11 || this order. 12 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 13 l. The Government must file a response to the Petition no later than December 14 8.2025. The Government’s response must address the allegations in the Petition and must 15 |/include any documents relevant to the determination of the issues raised in the Petition. 16 2. Petitioner may file a reply in support of his Petition no later than December 17 15,2025. 18 3. Given the Court’s briefing schedule, the Court GRANTS IN PART and 19 || DENIES IN PART the Motion for Order to Show Cause. (ECF No. 2.) 20 4. The Clerk of Court shall provide the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s 21 || Office with a copy of the Petition (ECF No. 1) and this Order. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 DATED: December 1, 2025 ii ly A (Dipharb 25 Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge 6 United States District Court

27 28 ~_9_

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 PARDEEP SHARMA, Case No. 25-cv-03335-BAS-DDL

14 Petitioner, ORDER: 15 v. (1) REQUIRING THE 16 JEREMY CASEY, et al., GOVERNMENT TO RESPOND 17 Respondents. TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (ECF No. 1); 18 AND 19 (2) GRANTING IN PART AND 20 DENYING IN PART MOTION 21 FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (ECF No. 2) 22

23 24 On November 27, 2025, Petitioner Pardeep Sharma filed a Petition for Writ of 25 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) In his Petition, Petitioner 26 claims that he is being detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in violation of 27 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its associated regulations, as well as the Fifth Amendment. (Id.) 28 1 In addition, Petitioner filed a Motion for Order to Show Cause. (ECF No. 2.) 2 || Petitioner asks the Court to require the Government to respond to the Petition within three 3 || days under the procedures set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 4 Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds summary dismissal is unwarranted at 5 ||this time. See Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary 6 || dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, 7 || palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”). Therefore, the Court will order the 8 ||Government to respond to the Petition. However, to promote the uniform treatment of 9 || similarly situated Section 2241 petitions challenging immigration custody, the Court finds 10 appropriate to require the Government to respond to the Petition within seven days of 11 || this order. 12 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 13 l. The Government must file a response to the Petition no later than December 14 8.2025. The Government’s response must address the allegations in the Petition and must 15 |/include any documents relevant to the determination of the issues raised in the Petition. 16 2. Petitioner may file a reply in support of his Petition no later than December 17 15,2025. 18 3. Given the Court’s briefing schedule, the Court GRANTS IN PART and 19 || DENIES IN PART the Motion for Order to Show Cause. (ECF No. 2.) 20 4. The Clerk of Court shall provide the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s 21 || Office with a copy of the Petition (ECF No. 1) and this Order. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 DATED: December 1, 2025 ii ly A (Dipharb 25 Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge 6 United States District Court

27 28 ~_9_

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Pardeep Sharma v. Jeremy Casey, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pardeep-sharma-v-jeremy-casey-et-al-casd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack