Sodhi Singh v. Christopher J. Larose, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
Petitioner, an immigration detainee, filed a third habeas corpus petition and a motion for a temporary restraining order, arguing that the immigration judge failed to apply the correct evidentiary standard at his bond hearing. The court dismissed the petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and denied the TRO motion as moot.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus“Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES the Petition. [Doc. No. 1.]” | agree with court The court correctly applied the exhaustion doctrine. The order recites that the petitioner has not appealed the IJ's bond denial to the BIA. Citing Leonardo v. Crawford, the court notes that federal courts should not review IJ bond decisions before the BIA has had the opportunity to do so. Therefore, the dismissal is legally sound based on the procedural history provided. |
Denial of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Ex Parte Motion as Moot“With the Petition dismissed, the motion for a TRO and ex parte motion (both of which seek relief contingent on the Petition) are DENIED AS MOOT. [Doc. Nos. 2, 5.]” | agree with court Because the underlying habeas petition was dismissed, the ancillary motions for relief contingent on that petition became moot. This is a standard procedural consequence. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise and directly addresses the procedural defect (failure to exhaust administrative remedies) using the correct binding authority from the Ninth Circuit. It clearly links the dismissal of the main petition to the mootness of the TRO motion.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 SODHI SINGH, Case No.: 3:26-cv-03797-CAB-BJW 14 Petitioner, ORDER: 15 v. (1) DISMISSING PETITION FOR A 16 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, et al., WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, [Doc. 17 Respondents. No. 1]; and 18 (2) DENYING MOTION FOR TRO 19 AND PETITIONER’S EX PARTE MOTION AS MOOT, [Doc. Nos. 2, 5]. 20 21 22 On June 30, 2026, Petitioner Sodhi Singh, an immigration detainee proceeding pro 23 se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, [Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”)], and a motion for 24 a temporary restraining order, [Doc. No. 2 (“TRO”)]. This is Petitioner’s third petition for 25 a writ of habeas corpus since his detention on December 13, 2024. [See Singh v. Larose et 26 al., Case No. 3:26-cv-00913-CAB-BJW (S.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2026) (“Singh I”).] 27 Petitioner entered the United States on December 13, 2024 without inspection and 28 was subsequently apprehended. [Singh I, Doc. No. 1 at 6.] He was determined to be an 1 ||inadmissible arriving alien and was placed into removal proceedings. [Singh I, Doc. No. 2 ||4 at 1.] On October 24, 2025, an immigration judge (“IJ”) ordered Petitioner removed to 3 || India; Petitioner appealed that decision to the BIA. [See id. at 2.] 4 Petitioner then filed his first habeas petition. [Singh I, Doc. No. 1.] After reviewing 5 ||the Petition, the Court ordered Respondents to provide Petitioner with an individualized 6 ||bond hearing. [Singh I, Doc. No. 5.] He received a bond hearing on March 11, 2026 at 7 || which the IJ denied bond. [Singh J, Doc. No. 6 at 1.] On June 12, 2026, Petitioner filed an 8 ||amended petition seeking immediate release. [Singh I, Doc. No. 7.] The Court denied 9 || Petitioner’s amended petition because he had not exhausted his administrative remedies 10 || with respect to the IJ’s denial of bond. [Singh I, Doc. No. 9 at 2.] 11 In the current Petition, Petitioner argues that because the IJ failed to apply the clear 12 || and convincing evidence standard at his bond hearing, this Court should release Petitioner 13 grant him another bond hearing. [Petition at 8.] As the Court explained in its Order in 14 || Singh I, the Ninth Circuit has held that pursuing habeas review of an IJ’s denial of bond 15 || before appealing to the BIA 1s “improper” and Petitioner should “exhaust[ ] administrative 16 remedies by appealing to the BIA before asking the federal district court to review the IJ’s 17 || decision.” Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011). Petitioner must 18 || appeal the IJ’s denial of bond to the BIA, not to this Court. 19 Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES the Petition. [Doc. No. 1.] With 20 || the Petition dismissed, the motion for a TRO and ex parte motion (both of which seek relief 21 || contingent on the Petition) are DENIED AS MOOT. [Doc. Nos. 2, 5.] 22 The Clerk of the Court shall close the case. 23 It is SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: August 10, 2026 € Z 25 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 26 United States District Judge 27 28