Pardeep Kumar v. Jeremy Casey, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Pardeep Kumar filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his immigration detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). The court denied summary dismissal of the petition and ordered the government to file a return by February 17, 2026.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of summary dismissal of the habeas petition“This challenge has sufficient potential merit to warrant a response.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for summary dismissal of habeas petitions, which requires that the petition be 'clearly not cognizable' or 'frivolous or incredible.' Given the significant split in district court authority and the existence of a class action final judgment in the same district supporting the petitioner's position, the petition clearly has 'potential merit' and cannot be summarily dismissed. The court's reliance on the volume of favorable district court decisions and the specific class action judgment in the C.D. Cal. provides a sufficient basis to deny summary dismissal at this preliminary stage. |
Order requiring the government to file a return“So, by February 17, 2026, the government is ordered to file a return to Kumar’s petition.” | agree with court This is a standard procedural order following the denial of summary dismissal in a habeas corpus case. It is a necessary step to allow the respondent to answer the petition and for the court to proceed to a merits determination. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the standard for summary dismissal of a habeas petition and applies it to the facts. It acknowledges the contrary appellate authority (Buenrostro-Mendez) but correctly notes that the petition has 'potential merit' due to the overwhelming number of favorable district court decisions and a specific class action judgment in the same district. This is a defensible and procedurally correct decision to deny summary dismissal and require a return.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionOpinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Pardeep KUMAR, Case No.: 26-cv-0758-AGS-JLB 4 Petitioner, ORDER REQUIRING RETURN 5 v. 6 Jeremy CASEY, et al., 7 Respondents. 8 9 Petitioner Pardeep Kumar seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 10 challenging his immigration detention. At this stage, he need only make out a claim that is 11 sufficiently cognizable to warrant a response. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in 12 the United States District Courts, Rule 4 (authorizing summary dismissal “if it plainly 13 appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to 14 relief”); id., Rule 1(b) (permitting application of Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases to 15 any “habeas corpus petition”). In this context, the relevant federal rules permit “summary 16 dismissal of claims that are clearly not cognizable.” Neiss v. Bludworth, 114 F.4th 1038, 17 1045 (9th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up). But “as long as a petition has any potential merit, it is 18 not so frivolous or incredible as to justify summary dismissal[.]” Id. 19 On “01/03/2023,” Kumar, a “citizen of India,” entered the United States. (ECF 1, 20 at 5.) Almost three years later, on “December 3, 2025,” he was apprehended by 21 Immigration and Customs Enforcement and “has been in immigration detention since.” 22 (Id.) Kumar is now challenging the government’s decision to subject him to mandatory 23 detention under “8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).” (Id.) He asserts that his case is instead governed 24 by “8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)”—which authorizes release on bond or conditional parole—and 25 that he is a member of a class action (Maldonado Bautista) which won declaratory relief 26 to that effect. (Id. at 7.) 27 This challenge has sufficient potential merit to warrant a response. Although the only 28 Court of Appeals to address this question has rejected Kumar’s position, see Buenrostro- | || Mendez v. Bondi, No. 25-20496, F.4th _, 2026 WL 323330, at *4 (Sth Cir. Feb. 6, 2 2026), functionally identical cases across the country have succeeded in great number, see, 3 Maldonado Bautista v. Noem, No. 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-BFM, 2025 WL 3678485, 4 *1 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025) (class action final judgment); Barco Mercado v. Francis, 5 ||__ F.Supp.3d.__, No. 25-cv-6582 (LAK), 2025 WL 3295903, at *4(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 6 2025) (noting that, in “350” of the “362” opinions to address this issue, the petitioners 7 “prevailed, either on a preliminary or final basis,” and these cases were “decided by over 8 || 160 different judges sitting in about fifty different courts”); Mosqueda v. Noem, No. 5:25- 9 || cv-02304 CAS (BFM), 2025 WL 2591530, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2025) (“[P]etitioners 10 || are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims because section 1226(a), not section 11 |} 1225(b)(2), likely governs their detention.”); Vazquez v. Feeley, No. 2:25-cv-01542-RFB- 12 2025 WL 2676082, at *11 (D. Nev. Sept. 17, 2025) (same); Rodriguez v. Bostock, 13 || No. 3:25-cv-05240-TMC, 2025 WL 2782499, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2025) (“[T]he 14 ||government’s position belies the statutory text of the INA, canons of statutory 15 interpretation, legislative history, and longstanding agency practice.”). 16 So, by February 17, 2026, the government is ordered to file a return to Kumar’s 17 || petition. Kumar must file any traverse by February 24, 2026. The Court will hold oral 18 ||}arguments on March 3, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. 19 || Dated: February 10, 2026 1 Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28