Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AJAYA RANA, Case No.: 26-cv-2563-RSH-DDL 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 v. RECONSIDER 14 CHRISTOPHER LaROSE, Warden, Otay [ECF No. 5] Mesa Detention Center, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 On April 22, 2026, petitioner Ajaya Rana filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. On April 29, 2026, the Court dismissed the 20 petition based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies. ECF No. 3. On May 6, 2026, 21 Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of that dismissal. ECF No. 5. Respondent 22 opposes. ECF No. 8. 23 I. BACKGROUND 24 This is the second of three habeas petitions that Petitioner has filed in this district in 25 connection with his immigration detention. Petitioner filed his first petition on January 16, 26 2026. See Case No. 26-cv-285, Dkt. No. 1. On February 2, 2026, the Court granted the 27 petition and ordered a bond hearing for Petitioner. Dkt. No. 5. The immigration court 28 timely held a bond hearing on February 11, 2026, and denied bond on the grounds that 1 Petitioner was a flight risk. Dkt. No. 7-1. Petitioner thereafter brought a motion to enforce 2 this Court’s judgment, arguing that the immigration judge erred and declined to grant 3 Petitioner a continuance to prepare additional evidence. Dkt. No. 7. Respondent opposed, 4 contending lack of error by the immigration judge as well as Petitioner’s failure to exhaust 5 administrative remedies. Dkt. No. 9. On March 13, 2026, the Court denied Petitioner’s 6 motion based on Petitioner’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Dkt. No. 11. 7 Petitioner thereafter filed his second petition, discussed above, which the Court 8 dismissed and which Petitioner has moved to reconsider. 9 Petitioner filed his third petition on July 1, 2026. See Case No. 26-cv-3829. This 10 petition raised arguments similar to those Petitioner made in his motion to enforce in 11 connection with the first case, as well as to those he subsequently made in his second 12 petition. Compare Case No. 26-cv-285, Dkt. No. 7, with ECF No. 1, and Case No. 26-cv- 13 3829, Dkt. No. 1. On July 29, 2026, the Court denied the third petition. See Case No. 26- 14 cv-3829, Dkt. No. 7. The Court determined that even apart from the doctrine of exhaustion 15 of administrative remedies, Petitioner failed to meet his burden of showing he is entitled to 16 habeas relief. Id. at 3. 17 II. DISCUSSION 18 Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly[.]” Kona Enters. 19 v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (addressing a motion for 20 reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)). “[A] motion for reconsideration should 21 not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented 22 with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change 23 in the controlling law.” Id. (citing 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 24 (9th Cir. 1999)). 25 In seeking reconsideration of the Court’s order of dismissal, Petitioner argues that 26 exhaustion of remedies through an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) 27 would be futile here, because the BIA “does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the 28 constitutional issues raised in the second petition.” ECF No. 5 at 2. The Court disagrees. 1 ||The BIA could have addressed the claims of error set forth in the second petition— 2 ||including Petitioner’s claim that the immigration judge improperly denied him a second 3 || continuance, depriving Petitioner of the “chance to prove that [he] meet[s] the necessary 4 ||burden of proof’ and “subjecting [him] to failure to apply the correct burden of □□□□□□ 5 || had Petitioner properly appealed his denial of bond. See ECF No. | at 6. 6 Even apart from the exhaustion doctrine, the claims in the second petition are subject 7 ||to denial for the reasons stated by the Court in denying Petitioner’s third petition—a 8 document that contains wording largely identical to that in Petitioner’s second petition. See 9 || Case No. 26-cv-3829, Dkt. No. | at 6. The Court finds no clear error its prior order and 10 || declines to reconsider dismissal of Petitioner’s second petition. 11 CONCLUSION 12 For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s motion to reconsider [ECF No. 5] 1s 13 || DENIED. 14 The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 6, 2026 [ekut ¢ Lowe 18 Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28