Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ASHWANEE KUMAR, Case No.: 26cv3725-LL-BJW 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS UNDER 28 14 JEREMY CASEY, WARDEN, U.S.C. § 2241 15 Respondents. [ECF No. 9] 16 17 18 Before the Court is Petitioner Ashwanee Kumar’s (“Petitioner”) Amended Petition 19 for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 9 (“Petition”). Pursuant 20 to the Court’s Briefing Schedule (ECF No. 5), Respondents filed a Return and Petitioner 21 filed a Traverse. ECF Nos. 10, 11. After due consideration and for the reasons below, the 22 Court DISMISSES the petition. 23 I. LEGAL STANDARD 24 A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates to be “in 25 custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 26 § 2241(c)(3). Traditionally, “the writ of habeas corpus has served as a means of reviewing 27 the legality of Executive detention, and it is in that context that its protections have been 28 strongest.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 536 (2004) (quoting I.N.S. v. St. Cyr, 533 1 U.S. 289, 301 (2001)). Accordingly, challenges to immigration-related detention are within 2 the purview of a district court’s habeas jurisdiction. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 3 (2001) (“Section 2441 habeas proceedings are available as a forum for statutory and 4 constitutional challenges to post-removal-period detention.”); see also Lopez-Marroquin 5 v. Barr, 955 F.3d 759 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[D]istrict courts retain jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 6 § 2241 to consider habeas challenges to immigration detention that are sufficiently 7 independent of the merits of [a] removal order.”). 8 II. ANALYSIS 9 Petitioner is a citizen of India who entered the United States without inspection in 10 April 2024 to apply for asylum. Pet. at 2. Petitioner submitted an affirmative application 11 for asylum on June 18, 2024, received a work permit, and began working as a truck driver. 12 Id. Pet. at 3; see also Exh. A, Decl. of Ashwanee Kumar (“Kumar Decl.”) ¶¶ 1-3. On 13 December 17, 2025, Petitioner was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs 14 Enforcement (“ICE”) at an immigration checkpoint while he was driving a truck on 15 Highway 86 near Indio. Pet. at 3; Kumar Decl. ¶ 4. Petitioner states that “although I showed 16 the agent my driver’s license and told him I had a work permit, the agent detained me.” 17 Kumar Decl. ¶ 5. Petitioner further states that “[the agent] never gave [him] any paperwork 18 or explained why he was detaining me.” Id. Petitioner argues that “[b]ecause Mr. Kumar 19 had a liberty interest in remaining out of custody while applying for asylum, Respondents 20 violated due process by revoking their decision to release him.” Pet. at 2. Petitioner seeks 21 immediate release. 22 Upon the Court’s review, the Court notes that Petitioner, represented by different 23 counsel, filed a prior section 2241 petition in case number 26cv459-LL-AHG, arising from 24 the same facts as the instant Petition. Ashwanee v. Warden of Imperial Regional Detention 25 Facility, et al., 26cv459-LL-AHG (Jan. 23, 2026), ECF No. 1. This Court granted in part 26 the previous Petition because Respondents agreed that Petitioner is entitled to a bond 27 hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Ashwanee v. Warden of Imperial Regional 28 Detention Facility, et al., 26cv459-LL-AHG (Feb. 12, 2026), ECF No. 8. Accordingly, in 1 February 24, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing before an immigration judge who 2 || determined that Petitioner poses a flight risk and denied bond. Response at 1; see also ECF 3 10-1. Petitioner did not appeal his denial of bond in the previous Petition to the BIA. 4 Respondents argue in their Return that “Petitioner failed to exhaust administrative 5 remedies or alternatively establish that an exception to the exhaustion requirement applies 6 || here.” Return at 2. 7 As an initial matter, Petitioner does not mention his prior petition or his bond hearing 8 the renewed petition. See generally Pet. “A habeas petition is subject to summary 9 || dismissal when it 1s repetitive or duplicative.” Trevino Chautla v. Larose, No. 3:26-CV- 10 ||3102-JES-VET, 2026 WL 1596187, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 2, 2026). Additionally, to the 11 |/extent that Petitioner’s argument is based on a purported liberty interest, the cases that 12 Petitioner relies on are in the parole context, which Petitioner was not granted. See 13 || generally Docket. Therefore, the Court DISMISSES the Petition. The Clerk of Court shall 14 || enter judgment dismissing this matter without prejudice and shall close the case file. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 || Dated: August 25, 2026 NO 17 DE 18 Honorable Linda Lopez 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28