Rajpal Singh v. Scarlet Grant, et al.

W.D. Oklahoma

Rajpal Singh v. Scarlet Grant, et al.

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma·Decided June 2, 2026·No. 5:26-cv-00606·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

RAJPAL SINGH, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) Case No. CIV-26-606-R ) SCARLET GRANT, et al., ) ) Respondents. )

ORDER

Petitioner, proceeding with counsel, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 asserting that his his bond determination hearing was constitutionally and procedurally defective. Petitioner subsequently filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in Case No. CIV-26-863-R which asserts the same claims. Since the instant Petition challenges the same detention and requests the same relief as the Petition in CIV-26-863, the instant Petition is subject to dismissal for being duplicative. See Mitchell v. Gunja, 76 F. App’x 865, 867 (10th Cir. 2003) (dismissing § 2241 claim for duplicating already-pending § 2241 claim). Accordingly, the Petition in this action is dismissed and Petitioner may proceed with his claim in CIV-26-863-R. IT IS SO ORDERED this 2"! day of June, 2026.

DAVID L. RUSSELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

RAJPAL SINGH, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) Case No. CIV-26-606-R ) SCARLET GRANT, et al., ) ) Respondents. )

ORDER

Petitioner, proceeding with counsel, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 asserting that his his bond determination hearing was constitutionally and procedurally defective. Petitioner subsequently filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in Case No. CIV-26-863-R which asserts the same claims. Since the instant Petition challenges the same detention and requests the same relief as the Petition in CIV-26-863, the instant Petition is subject to dismissal for being duplicative. See Mitchell v. Gunja, 76 F. App’x 865, 867 (10th Cir. 2003) (dismissing § 2241 claim for duplicating already-pending § 2241 claim). Accordingly, the Petition in this action is dismissed and Petitioner may proceed with his claim in CIV-26-863-R. IT IS SO ORDERED this 2"! day of June, 2026.

DAVID L. RUSSELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Rajpal Singh v. Scarlet Grant, et al., (W.D. Okla. 2026).

Pincite

Rajpal Singh v. Scarlet Grant, et al. (Rajpal Singh v. Scarlet Grant, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related