Gurpreet Singh v. Daniel A. Brightman, Field Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — He asserts 27 his detention is unlawful and violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Id.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Benjamin J. Cheeks (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Gurpreet Singh, an immigration detainee, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and a motion for a temporary restraining order challenging his detention and seeking to prevent his removal. The court set a briefing schedule and issued a limited injunction enjoining respondents from removing the petitioner from the United States or the District pending further order.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Set briefing schedule for the Petition and Motion for TRO“The Court finds it appropriate to set a briefing schedule on the petition and motion for a temporary restraining order.” | agree with court The court exercised its inherent authority to manage the docket and set deadlines for the pending motions. This is a standard procedural action. |
Grant limited injunction to preserve status quo“Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons acting in active concert or participation with them are hereby ENJOINED from removing Petitioner from the United States or this District pending further order of the Court, to maintain the status quo to allow the Court to provide a reasoned decision to the request at hand.” | agree with court The court relied on the All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. § 1651) and cited district court precedents (E-C-R- v. Noem; Du v. DHS) to justify a limited stay to preserve jurisdiction and the status quo while the merits are briefed. This is a common procedural mechanism in immigration detention cases to prevent mootness. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a procedural scheduling and status quo preservation order. It correctly identifies the need to prevent removal to preserve jurisdiction and cites relevant district court authority and the All Writs Act. It does not reach the merits of the habeas petition or the TRO standards (irreparable harm, likelihood of success), which is appropriate at this stage.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GURPREET SINGH, Case No.: 26-cv-0233-BJC-VET 12 Petitioner, ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE 13 v. 14 DANIEL A. BRIGHTMAN, Field Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations, 15 et al., 16 Respondents. 17 18 19 On January 15, 2026, Petitioner Gurpreet Singh filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas 20 Corpus and a motion for a temporary restraining order. ECF Nos. 1, 2. He alleges he 21 entered the United States on December 6, 2022, was placed in immigration proceedings 22 and subsequently paroled into the United States. Pet. ¶ 8. He further alleges, despite his 23 compliance and attendance at all court hearings for his removal proceedings, he was re- 24 detained, without any notice, by the Department of Homeland Security at his Immigration 25 and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) check-in on July 22, 2025. Id. ¶¶ 10, 11. Petitioner is 26 currently detained at the Imperial Regional Adult Detention Facility. Id. ¶ 12. He asserts 27 his detention is unlawful and violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the 28 Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), the guarantee of equal protection, and the 1 Suspension Clause of the constitution. Id. ¶¶ 37-81. Petitioner requests the Court enjoin 2 Respondents from transferring him during the pendency of this action, declare his 3 continued detention violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, the APA, and the Due 4 Process Clause, and order his immediate release. Id. at 20.1 5 The Court finds it appropriate to set a briefing schedule on the petition and motion 6 for a temporary restraining order. Additionally, the Court finds a limited stay is necessary 7 to preserve the status quo to allow the Court to hold a hearing, as deemed necessary, and 8 provide a reasoned decision on the pending motion and petition. See E-C-R- v. Noem, No. 9 3:25-CV-1230-SI, 2025 WL 2300543, at *1 (D. Or. July 16, 2025) (finding an order under 10 the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, necessary to prevent the arrest, detention or 11 deportation of the plaintiff while the parties litigate the merits of the plaintiff’s motion for 12 injunctive relief); Du v. United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 3:25-CV-644 (OAW), 13 2025 WL 1317944, at *2 (D. Conn. Apr. 24, 2025) (enjoining the defendants, under the 14 All Writs Act, from removing the plaintiffs from the District of Connecticut to preserve 15 the court’s jurisdiction). 16 /// 17 /// 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 27 28 1 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 2 1. Respondents shall file a response to the Petition and Application for a 3 Temporary Restraining Order no later than close of business on January 4 23, 2026. 5 2. Petitioner may file a reply no later than close of business on January 30, 6 2026. 7 3. Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons 8 acting in active concert or participation with them are hereby ENJOINED 9 from removing Petitioner from the United States or this District pending 10 further order of the Court, to maintain the status quo to allow the Court to 11 provide a reasoned decision to the request at hand. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 ||Dated: January 16, 2026 14 16 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28