Simarjeet Singh v. Warden, California City ICE Detention Facility, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SIMARJEET SINGH (A No. 215 814 No. 1:26-cv-4020 TLN CKD P 912), 12 Petitioner, 13 v. 14 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS WARDEN, CALIFORNIA CITY ICE 15 DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 16 Respondents. 17

18 19 Petitioner, detained by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE), has 20 filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging that 21 detention.1 For the reasons which follow, the court recommends that the petition be dismissed. 22 I. Facts 23 Petitioner is a native and citizen of India. ECF No. 8-1 at 1. He entered the United States 24 on September 8, 2018, near Otay Mesa. ECF No. 1 at 5. At some point petitioner was taken into 25 custody. On October 19, 2018, petitioner was charged with being inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 26 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) and 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). ECF No. 8-2 at 1. On November 13, 2018, 27 1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, 28 and Local Rule 302(c)(17). 1 he was released on bond pending a “final administrative determination” as to whether petitioner 2 would be permitted to remain in the United States. ECF No. 8-3 at 1. 3 While on release, and beginning on January 15, 2020, petitioner amassed an extensive 4 criminal history (ECF No. 8-4) culminating with a Kern County conviction for arson of a 5 structure or forest land on January 22, 2025 for which petitioner was sentenced to 4 years in 6 prison. Id. at 14. Upon release from prison Pleasant Valley State Prison on February 12, 2026, 7 petitioner was taken into ICE custody. ECF No. ECF No. 8-1 at 1-2. Petitioner has not received 8 a hearing concerning the validity of arrest or detention, id., although it does not appear petitioner 9 has requested one. The status of petitioner’s immigration proceedings is not clear. 10 II. Standard for Habeas Relief 11 The Constitution guarantees the availability of the writ of habeas corpus “to every 12 individual detained within the United States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) 13 (citing U.S. Const., Art I, § 9, cl. 2). “The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in 14 custody upon the legality of that custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure 15 release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). A writ of habeas 16 corpus may be granted to a petitioner in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law. 28 17 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Historically, “the writ of habeas corpus has served as a means of reviewing 18 the legality of Executive detention, and it is in that context that its protections have been 19 strongest.” I.N.S. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 301 (2001). A district court’s habeas jurisdiction 20 includes challenges to immigration detention. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001). 21 III. Analysis 22 Respondents argue that petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under 28 U.S.C. § 23 1226(c)(1)(A) and 28 U.S.C. § 1182(c)(2) without any process such as a bond hearing because 24 petitioner’s conviction for arson of a structure or forest land amounts to a crime of “moral 25 turpitude.” It does not appear that the Ninth Circuit has considered whether arson of a structure 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 or forest land in California is a crime of moral turpitude and it is not entirely clear whether it 2 categorically is.2 3 Petitioner has the ability to challenge whether his conviction qualifies petitioner for 4 mandatory detention via a request for a Matter of Joseph, 22 I&N Dec. 799 (BIA 1999) hearing 5 before an immigration judge, Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 514 (2003), and he has the ability to 6 appeal any decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals. Buckley v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-cv- 7 02624-DAD-JDP, 2026 WL 1030931, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2026). Since it is not clear under 8 law whether arson of a structure or forest land in California is a crime of moral turpitude, 9 petitioner pursuing a hearing before an immigration judge and then an appeal are not futile. Also 10 the court finds agency expertise makes agency consideration appropriate. Not requiring petitioner 11 to exhaust the agency remedies available to him would encourage deliberate bypass of such 12 remedies by others. Furthermore, agency review will allow the agency to correct mistakes 13 possibly precluding the need for judicial review. Considering all of these factors, this action 14 should be dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to exhaust the remedies available to him. Id. 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 16 1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED for failure to 17 exhaust available administrative remedies; and 18 2. This case be closed. 19 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 20 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days after 21 being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with 22 the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 23 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be 24 served and filed within 14 days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that

25 2 A crime involving moral turpitude has been defined to include “a crime that (1) is vile, base, or depraved and (2) violates accepted moral standards.” Walcott v. Garland, 21 F.4th 590, 598 (9th 26 Cir. 2021) (citation modified). A person is guilty of arson of a structure or forest land in 27 California “when he or she willfully and maliciously sets fire to or burns or causes to be burned or who aids, counsels, or procures the burning of . . . any structure [or] forest land.” Cal Penal 28 Code § 451(c). 1 | failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 2 | Court’s order. Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 | Dated: July 2, 2026 aie A / ap 4

5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8] 1 9 sing4020.imm. frs

10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28