Jot Parkash Singh v. Warden of Imperial Regional Detention Facility, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a § 2241 habeas petition and a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) filed by a detained immigration petitioner. The court declined to summarily dismiss the petition, denied the request for an ex parte TRO in favor of a consolidated hearing under Rule 65(a)(2), and ordered the respondents to file a response while enjoining them from transferring the petitioner outside the district.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Declined to summarily dismiss the habeas petition and ordered a response.“Having reviewed the petition, the Court finds summary dismissal is unwarranted at this time... Therefore, the Court will order a response to the Petition.” | agree with court The court applied the standard from Kourteva v. INS, which requires that allegations be vague, conclusory, or frivolous for summary dismissal. Since the petition alleged specific statutory violations (INA, APA, 5th Amendment) regarding prolonged detention, the decision to proceed to a response is consistent with the cited authority and the recited facts. |
Denied the request for an ex parte TRO and ordered a consolidated hearing on the merits under Rule 65(a)(2).“The Court instead provides notice to the parties that it intends to consolidate the TRO with a determination on the merits under Rule 65(a)(2).” | agree with court The court cited Granny Goose Foods and Reno Air Racing to support the preference for notice and the stringent restrictions on ex parte TROs. It noted the lack of supporting evidence in the TRO motion. Consolidating the TRO with the merits under Rule 65(a)(2) is a permissible procedural mechanism to address the urgency while ensuring due process, particularly given the lack of evidence of imminent removal. |
Issued a limited injunction preventing the transfer of the petitioner outside the Southern District of California.“To maintain the status quo, Respondents, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and other persons who act in concert or participation with Respondents SHALL NOT transfer Petitioner outside of the Southern District of California pending the Court’s resolution of the Petition.” | agree with court The court relied on Doe v. Bondi (a district court case) to assert jurisdiction to preserve the status quo. While Doe v. Bondi is not binding Supreme Court or Ninth Circuit precedent, the power to preserve the status quo in habeas cases is well-established. The restriction is narrowly tailored to the district to maintain jurisdiction and is a standard procedural measure in such cases. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the standard for summary dismissal in habeas cases and the procedural requirements for TROs. It appropriately balances the need for urgency with the requirement for notice and evidence, using Rule 65(a)(2) to consolidate the proceedings. The status quo injunction is a standard and narrowly tailored measure to preserve the court's jurisdiction. The reliance on Doe v. Bondi, while not binding higher court precedent, is consistent with established law regarding status quo preservation in habeas cases.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOT PARKASH SINGH, Case No.: 3:26-cv-00557-CAB-BLM 12 Petitioner, ORDER TO RESPOND 13 v. 14 WARDEN OF IMPERIAL REGIONAL DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner Jot Parkash Singh (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, [Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”),] and a motion for temporary 19 restraining order, [Doc. No. 2 (“TRO”)]. Petitioner claims prolonged detention by 20 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) since December 2025 in violation of the 21 Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Fifth 22 Amendment. [Petition at 11–14.] 23 Having reviewed the petition, the Court finds summary dismissal is unwarranted at 24 this time. See Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary 25 dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, 26 palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”). Therefore, the Court will order a 27 response to the Petition. 28 1 Turning to the TRO, Petitioner requests that the Court “order Respondents to cease 2 any ongoing action and refrain from taking any additional actions toward effectuating 3 Petitioner’s removal from the United States, until the Court has adjudicated his petition 4 and complaint.” [TRO at 2.] While temporary restraining orders may be heard in true ex 5 parte fashion (i.e., without notice to an opposing party), the Court’s strong preference is 6 for the opposing party to be served and afforded a reasonable opportunity to file an 7 opposition. See Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers 8 Loc. No. 70 of Alameda Cnty., 415 U.S. 423, 438–39 (1974) (discussing ex parte temporary 9 restraining orders and their “stringent restrictions”); accord Reno Air Racing Ass’n, Inc. v. 10 McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006) (same); Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). This is 11 particularly true here where Petitioner’s motion for TRO concludes without any supporting 12 evidence that Respondents “seek to remove Petitioner . . . without affording him the 13 procedural protections guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment” or that he “continues to face 14 an imminent threat of removal.” [TRO at 2.] 15 The Court instead provides notice to the parties that it intends to consolidate the TRO 16 with a determination on the merits under Rule 65(a)(2). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2); see 17 also Slidewaters LLC v. Wash. State Dep’t of Lab. & Indus., 4 F.4th 747, 759 (9th Cir. 18 2021) (noting the court can invoke Rule 65(a)(2) by giving “clear and unambiguous 19 notice”). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 20 1. Respondents shall file a response by February 6, 2026. The response must 21 address the allegations in the Petition and the motion for TRO and must include any 22 documents relevant to the determination of the issues raised. 23 2. Petitioner may file a reply by February 10, 2026. 24 3. To maintain the status quo, Respondents, their officers, agents, servants, 25 employees, attorneys, and other persons who act in concert or participation with 26 27 28 1 ||Respondents SHALL NOT transfer Petitioner outside of the Southern District of 2 California pending the Court’s resolution of the Petition.! 3 4. The Clerk of Court shall provide the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s 4 || Office with a copy of the Petition and this Order. 5 Itis SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: January 30, 2026 (yge— 7 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo g United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ' See Doe v. Bondi, Case No. 3:25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) 27 (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether [they have] 8 subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from the court.”’) (collecting cases).