Vinod Kumar v. Pam Bondi, Attorney General et al.

Opinion

VINOD KUMAR, Case No.: 3:26-cv-00337-RBM-MMP

Petitioner, ORDER: v. (1) GRANTING MOTION TO PAM BONDI, Attorney General et al., PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Respondents. [Doc. 2]; AND

(2) REQUIRING A RESPONSE TO THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS [Doc. 1]

On January 15, 2026, Petitioner Vinod Kumar (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”). (Doc. 1.) In the Petition, Petitioner claims he is being detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. (Id. ¶¶ 6, 13; see Doc. 1-2 ¶¶ 2–3.) That same day, Petitioner also filed a Request to Proceed in Forma Pauperis with Declaration in Support (“IFP Motion”) in which he attests he has no means to pay the $5.00 filing fee. (Doc. 2 at 1–2.) Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s IFP Motion. The Clerk shall file the Petition without prepayment of the filing fee. The Court also finds that summary dismissal of the Petition is unwarranted. See Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”) (citation omitted). Respondents are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before January 28, 2026 at 4:30 p.m. as to why the Petition should not be granted by: (1) filing a written response; (2) filing as exhibits all documents or evidence relevant to the determination of the issues raised in the Petition, including the Form I-830 referenced in the Petition (see Doc. 1-2 § 25), and any documents reflecting Petitioner’s immigration history to the extent they exist; and (3) making a recommendation regarding the need for an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner MAY FILE a }reply on or before February 11, 2026 at 4:30 p.m. The matter will be deemed under submission at that time and the Parties shall await further order from the Court. To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction, and to maintain the status quo, Petitioner SHALL NOT be transferred outside of the Southern District of California pending a ruling in this matter. See Doe v. Bondi, Case No.: 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether [they have] subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from the court.”’) (collecting cases). The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED TO TRANSMIT a copy of the Petition (Doc. 1) and this Order to the United States Attorney’s Office. DATE: January 21, 2026 cReeathreac . RUTH BERMU@DEZ! MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE