Gurnoor Singh v. Christopher Larose, Senior Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center; Patrick Divver, Field Office Director, Enforcement and Removal Operations, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and Markwayne Mullin, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Barry T. Moskowitz (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a habeas petition challenging the petitioner's prolonged detention without an individualized bond hearing. The court granted the petition in part by ordering an individualized bond hearing with specific procedural safeguards and denied the request for immediate release without a hearing.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the petition for a writ of habeas corpus in part to order an individualized bond hearing.“For the reasons stated above, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED IN PART. The Respondents are ordered to grant the Petitioner an individualized bond hearing in accordance with the requirements ordered above.” | agree with court The court correctly identifies that prolonged detention without a bond hearing implicates due process rights. By ordering a hearing where the government bears the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence, the court applies the standard established in Ninth Circuit precedent (Singh v. Holder) and consistent with recent district court rulings in the same district. The addition of safeguards regarding the neutrality of the immigration judge addresses the specific concerns raised in the petition. |
Denying the remedy of immediate release without a bond hearing.“The remedy of release without a bond hearing DENIED without prejudice.” | agree with court The court declined to order immediate release, relying on its prior decision in Amandeep Singh v. LaRose. The reasoning provided—that the court retains jurisdiction to enforce the writ and that respondents have historically respected court judgments—supports the conclusion that a bond hearing is a sufficient remedy at this stage, provided the hearing is conducted fairly. Denying immediate release is a discretionary determination that is generally upheld if a less drastic remedy (the hearing) is available and likely to be effective. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound and relies on binding Ninth Circuit precedent (Singh v. Holder) and consistent district court authority. It addresses the petitioner's specific concern about judicial neutrality by imposing a requirement for a 'fair, neutral, and open-minded' judge. The denial of immediate release is supported by the availability of the bond hearing remedy and the court's retained jurisdiction.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GURNOOR SINGH, Case No.: 3:26-cv-01389-BTM-VET 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 13 v. DENYING IN PART PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 15 CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, Senior [ECF NO. 1] Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center; 16 PATRICK DIVVER, Field Office 17 Director, Enforcement and Removal Operations, Immigration and Customs 18 Enforcement; and MARKWAYNE 19 MULLIN, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, 20 Respondents. 21 22 23 Gurnoor Singh petitioned the Court for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 24 § 2241 on March 4, 2026. (ECF No. 1.) In his amended petition, he claims that his 25 fourteen-month prolonged detention without an individualized bond hearing “violates the 26 Due Process Clause.” (ECF No. 6 (“Am. Pet.”), at 1, 6.) 27 The Respondents “concede[] that this Court should order that Petitioner receive a 28 bond hearing, where the government would bear the burden of proof of establishing, by 1 clear and convincing evidence, that Petitioner poses a danger to the community or a risk of 2 flight.” (ECF No. 8, at 1 (first citing Sadeqi v. LaRose, 809 F. Supp. 3d 1090 (S.D. Cal. 3 2025); and then citing Gao v. LaRose, 805 F. Supp. 3d 1106 (S.D. Cal. 2025)).) The 4 Petitioner argues that immediate release is the correct remedy for the violation of his Due 5 Process rights rather than a bond hearing. He contends that, because the neutrality of the 6 immigration judges has been “severely compromised,” there is a “serious risk” that an 7 immigration judge will “order Mr. Singh’s continued detention even if he poses no danger 8 or flight risk.” (Am. Pet., 9.) 9 To remedy the violation of the Petitioner’s Due Process rights, the Court is ordering 10 an individualized bond hearing with additional safeguards. See Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 11 1196, 1200 (9th Cir. 2011). The bond hearing must be before a fair, neutral, and open- 12 minded immigration judge who is ordered to determine whether the Petitioner is a danger 13 to the community or a flight risk and what bond conditions, if any, would be appropriate 14 to ensure the Petitioner’s appearance. During the bond hearing, the Respondents shall bear 15 the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that the Petitioner poses a 16 danger or flight risk. See Sandesh v. LaRose, 2026 WL 622690, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 17 2026) (“[I]t [is] appropriate to continue to apply the standard set forth in Singh in the case 18 of bond hearings for those subjected to prolonged detention under § 1225(b) to protect the 19 critical liberty interest and due process rights of such individuals.”). If the immigration 20 judge denies bond, the judge must make specific findings as to why the Petitioner is a flight 21 risk or a danger to the community. 22 The Court declines to grant outright release for the same reason it discussed in 23 Amandeep Singh v. LaRose: 24 If the Petitioner believes that the Respondents or the immigration judge violated this order and the writ, the Petitioner can apply to this Court for 25 appropriate sanctions. If past history is any guide, the Respondents have 26 shown the upmost respect for this Court’s judgments and has timely followed them thereby enabling the mutual respect of the Court. There is no reason to 27 believe that the mutual respect for coequal branches of the government will 28 not continue here in the Southern District of California. 1 WL 684654, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2026). 2 For the reasons stated above, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED 3 || IN PART. The Respondents are ordered to grant the Petitioner an individualized bond 4 || hearing in accordance with the requirements ordered above. The hearing must be held no 5 ||later than April 17, 2026. The remedy of release without a bond hearing 6 DENIED without prejudice. 7 The parties shall file a joint statement on the results of Singh’s April 15 merits 8 || hearing no later than 12 p.m. on April 16, 2026. (See ECF No. 11.) If the merits hearing 9 ||results in Singh’s release, the parties may file a motion to vacate this writ as moot. 10 || Otherwise, the parties shall file a joint statement as to compliance with this writ and order 11 the result of the bond hearing by 5 p.m. on April 20, 2026. The Court retains 12 jurisdiction to enforce the writ. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 3, 2026 j il Jueek Honorable Barry Ted Mosko 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 □ □□