Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Case No.: 26cv02622 DMS (SBC) 11 DAVINDER SINGH, 12 O R D E R G R A N T I N G P E T I TION Petitioner, 13 v. 14 WARDEN, Facility Administrator of 15 Imperial Regional Adult Detention Facility; SERGIO ALBARRAN, Acting 16 Field Office Director of the San Francisco 17 Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office; TODD LYONS, Acting Director 18 of United States Immigration and Customs 19 Enforcement; MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary of the United States Department 20 of Homeland Security; TODD 21 BLANCHE, Attorney General of the United States, acting in their official 22 capacities, 23 Respondents. 24 25 Before the Court is Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Pet., ECF No. 26 1.) Respondents filed a return, (Return, ECF No. 6), and Petitioner filed a reply, (ECF No. 27 7). For the following reasons, the Court grants the Petition. 28 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 Petitioner Davinder Singh fled India to the United States in March 2024 to escape 3 political and religious persecution. (Pet. at 13.) Upon entry, he was apprehended by U.S. 4 Customs and Border Protection near San Ysidro. (Id.) Petitioner was released from custody 5 five days later with post-detention instructions from ICE. (Id.) Petitioner complied with all 6 ICE instructions, never intentionally missing any scheduled ICE appointments or 7 attempting to evade supervision. (Id.) Petitioner also complied with his immigration court 8 obligations, timely filing a Form I-589 asylum application and appearing for all required 9 hearings. (Id.) 10 In July 2025, Petitioner attended his hearing at the Santa Ana Immigration 11 Court. (Id.) There, the immigration judge ordered the dismissal of Petitioner’s 12 removal proceedings. (Id.) Then, after Petitioner exited the courtroom, ICE officers 13 arrested him in the hallway without notice or explanation. (Id.) Following his arrest, 14 Petitioner was transported to the California City Correctional Center, where he was 15 detained until November 2025. (Id. at 15.) Petitioner was then transferred to the Imperial 16 Regional Adult Detention Facility, where he remains detained. (Id.) 17 In April 2026, Petitioner filed the present Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The 18 Complaint alleges Respondents violated Petitioners Fifth Amendment right to due process. 19 Petitioner requests, among other relief, that the Court issue a writ of habeas corpus 20 requiring Respondents to release Petitioner and issue an injunction preventing Respondents 21 from re-detaining Petitioner “unless his re-detention is ordered at a custody hearing before 22 a neutral arbiter.” (Id. at 19.) 23 II. LEGAL STANDARD 24 Under the Constitution, the writ of habeas corpus is available to “every individual 25 detained within the United States” to demand judicial review of unlawful detention, 26 including non-citizens. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004); Zadvydas v. Davis, 27 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001). “[T]he traditional function of the writ is to secure release from 28 illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). A court may grant a writ 1 of habeas corpus to a petitioner who shows their custody violates constitutional or federal 2 law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). 3 III. DISCUSSION 4 Petitioner argues his detention is “an unlawful deprivation of liberty inconsistent 5 with the Fifth Amendment.” (Pet. at 15.) Respondent claims “Petitioner is subject to 6 mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2),” but “acknowledges that this Court’s prior 7 decisions will control the result here if the Court adheres to its prior decisions, as the facts 8 are not materially distinguishable.” (Return, ECF No. 6 at 3.) Thus, Respondent “does not 9 oppose the petition.” (Id.) The Court finds that Petitioner’s current detention violates the 10 Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and therefore grants the petition. 11 The Fifth Amendment guarantees that “[n]o person shall be . . . deprived of life, 12 liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. V. “[I]t is well 13 established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation 14 proceedings.” Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 306 (1993). “Freedom from imprisonment— 15 from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint—lies at the heart 16 of the liberty that [the Due Process Clause] protects.” Zadvydas 533 U.S. at 690. 17 When determining whether Petitioner's procedural due process rights have been 18 violated, the Court must consider: “[f]irst, the private interest that will be affected by the 19 official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the 20 procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural 21 safeguards; and finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the 22 fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement 23 would entail.” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976). 24 First, Petitioner “invokes the most significant liberty interest there is—the interest 25 in being free from imprisonment.” Munoz Materano v. Arteta, 804 F. Supp. 3d 395, 416 26 (S.D.N.Y. 2025) (citation modified) (citation omitted). Here, Petitioner was on supervised 27 release when he was re-detained. He undeniably had a liberty interest. See Noori v. LaRose, 28 807 F. Supp. 3d 1146, 1164 (S.D. Cal. 2025) (finding the petitioner “has a private interest 1 in remaining free, which developed over the year he resided in the United States”). 2 Therefore, this factor weighs in Petitioner's favor. 3 Next, there is a high risk of erroneous deprivation of this liberty interest when 4 noncitizens are re-detained without a hearing. See, e.g., Pablo Sequen v. Albarran, 806 F. 5 Supp. 3d 1069, 1089 (N.D. Cal. 2025) (citing cases). Here, Petitioner fully complied with 6 ICE’s post-detention instructions and his immigration court obligations following his first 7 detention. In fact, he was re-detained while attending an immigration hearing. He was re- 8 detained without notice, without an individualized custody determination, without any 9 process. He remains detained, still having received no process. Accordingly, the second 10 factor—the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used— 11 unquestionably weighs in favor of Petitioner. 12 On the third factor, “[t]he government may have a ‘strong interest’ in detaining 13 noncitizens during the pendency of removal proceedings as needed to protect the public 14 from dangerous criminal aliens, or to prevent flight and thereby increase the chance that 15 the aliens will be successfully removed.” Pablo Sequen, 806 F. Supp. 3d at 1090 (citation 16 modified) (quoting Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53 F.4th 1189, 1208 (9th Cir. 2022)). 17 However, when the Government previously decided to release a noncitizen and there is no 18 evidence of any changed circumstance that might have caused the Government to 19 reconsider that decision, its interest in re-detention is low. Doe v. Chestnut, No. 25-cv- 20 01372, 2025 WL 3295154, at *10 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025) (citations omitted). Here, no 21 such evidence exists. Petitioner was compliant and law-abiding. “While the government 22 has an interest in enforcing immigration laws . . . it must pursue that interest ‘in a manner 23 consistent with the Constitution.’” Munoz Materano, 804 F. Supp. 3d at 420 (citation 24 omitted). This factor also weighs in Petitioner's favor. Thus, applying the Mathews 25 balancing test, the Court finds that Petitioner's detention violates his Fifth Amendment due 26 process rights. 27 Accordingly, the Petition is GRANTED. The Court ORDERS Petitioner's 28 immediate release. I IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 2 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the Petition. Respondents shall release 3 || Petitioner within 24 hours, and shall not re-detain Petitioner without first providing a pre- 4 || deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker at which Respondents must prove that 5 ||changed circumstances related to flight risk or danger warrant Petitioner's re-detention. 6 || Respondents are further ORDERED to file a Status Report within seven (7) days of the 7 entry of this Order, confirming Petitioner has been released. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 || Dated: July 20, 2026 10 2 nnn Salo Hon. Dana M. Sabraw United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28