(HC) Singh v. Chestnut et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JAGROOP SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER CHESTNUT, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No. 1:26-cv-00028-JLT-EPG-HC
ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE
Petitioner, represented by counsel, is a federal immigration detainee proceeding with a
petition of writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
On January 5, 2025, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus and motion for
temporary restraining order (“TRO”). (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) On January 6, 2025, the Court denied the
motion for TRO as untimely but converted it to a motion for preliminary injunction and referred
the matter to the undersigned. (ECF No. 6.)
Given that the petition and the motion for preliminary injunction raise the same claims
and seek identical relief, and for purposes of judicial efficiency, it appears to the Court that
issuing findings and recommendations on the merits pursuant to Rule 65(a)(2), which provides
that “the court may advance the trial on the merits and consolidate it with the hearing” on a
motion for preliminary injunction, is appropriate. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2).
///
Case 1:26-cv-00028-JLT-EPG Document 7 Filed 01/07/26 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this order, Respondents SHALL file a
response to the petition and motion for preliminary injunction; and
2. Within ten (10) days of the date of service of Respondents’ response, Petitioner may file
a reply.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 7, 2026 /s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-00028-JLT-EPG Document 7 Filed 01/07/26 Page 2 of 2