Sodhi Singh v. Christopher J. Larose, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Sodhi Singh, an immigration detainee, moved for reconsideration of the court's order denying his third habeas corpus petition and closing the case for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court denied the motion, holding that Singh had not exhausted his remedies because he had not yet received a decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Reconsideration Denied“The Court therefore DENIES Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. [Doc. No. 8.]” | agree with court The court correctly applied the exhaustion doctrine. In immigration habeas cases, a petitioner must exhaust administrative remedies by appealing to the BIA and receiving a final decision before seeking federal habeas relief. The order explicitly notes that while Singh filed an appeal, he has not received a decision, meaning the administrative process is not complete. Therefore, the district court lacks jurisdiction to grant the habeas relief at this time, and the denial of the motion for reconsideration is legally sound. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise and directly addresses the petitioner's argument. It correctly identifies the legal requirement for exhaustion in immigration habeas cases and applies it to the specific facts (filing an appeal vs. receiving a decision). The reliance on Ninth Circuit precedent is appropriate and sufficient for this procedural ruling.
Opinion
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 DENYING MOTION FOR 15 v. RECONSIDERATION 16 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, et al., 17 Respondents. [Doc. No. 8] 18 19 On June 30, 2026, Petitioner Sodhi Singh, an immigration detainee proceeding pro 20 se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. [Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”).] This was 21 Petitioner’s third petition for a writ of habeas corpus since his detention on December 13, 22 2024. [See Singh v. Larose et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-00913-CAB-BJW (S.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 23 2026) (“Singh I”).] On August 10, 2026, the Court denied the Petition and closed this case, 24 instructing Petitioner to first exhaust his administrative remedies before seeking relief in 25 this Court. [Doc. No. 6 at 2.] Petitioner argues that because he complied with the Court’s 26 instruction in Singh I to pursue an appeal before the Board of Immigration Appeals 27 (“BIA”), the Court improperly dismissed the Petition in this case. [Doc. No. 8 at 1.] 28 Petitioner does not state that he has received a decision from the BIA yet. 1 Exhausting administrative remedies means that Petitioner must appeal to the BIA 2 || and receive a decision from the BIA. See Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th 3 2011) (“Once the BIA rendered its decision, [the petitioner] could have properly 4 || pursued habeas relief in the district court[.]” (emphasis added)). Although Petitioner has 5 || filed an appeal with the BIA, he has not yet received a decision from the BIA and therefore 6 || exhausted administrative remedies. 7 The Court therefore DENIES Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. [Doc. No. 8.] 8 No further filings shall be accepted in this closed case. 9 Itis SO ORDERED. 10 ||Dated: August 25, 2026 (GR 11 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28