Singh v. Brightman et al

1
26-cv-0233-BJC-VET
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
GURPREET SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
DANIEL A. BRIGHTMAN, Field Office
of Enforcement and Removal Operations,
et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-cv-0233-BJC-VET
ORDER SETTING BRIEFING
SCHEDULE
On January 15, 2026, Petitioner Gurpreet Singh filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus and a motion for a temporary restraining order. 	ECF Nos. 1, 2. 	He alleges he
entered the United States on December 6, 2022, was placed in immigration proceedings
and subsequently paroled into the United States. Pet. ¶ 8. He further alleges, despite his
compliance and attendance at all court hearings for his removal proceedings, he was re-
detained, without any notice, by the Department of Homeland Security at his Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) check-in on July 22, 2025. Id. ¶¶ 10, 11. Petitioner is
currently detained at the Imperial Regional Adult Detention Facility. Id. ¶ 12. He asserts
his detention is unlawful and violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the
Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), the guarantee of equal protection, and the
Case 3:26-cv-00233-BJC-VET Document 3 Filed 01/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
26-cv-0233-BJC-VET
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
Suspension Clause of the constitution. Id. ¶¶ 37-81. 	Petitioner requests the Court enjoin
Respondents from transferring him during the pendency of this action, declare his
continued detention violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, the APA, and the Due
Process Clause, and order his immediate release. Id. at 20. 1
The Court finds it appropriate to set a briefing schedule on the petition and motion
for a temporary restraining order. Additionally, the Court finds a limited stay is necessary
to preserve the status quo to allow the Court to hold a hearing, as deemed necessary, and
provide a reasoned decision on the pending motion and petition. See E-C-R- v. Noem, No.
3:25-CV-1230-SI, 2025 WL 2300543, at *1 (D. Or. July 16, 2025) (finding an order under
the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, necessary to prevent the arrest, detention or
deportation of the plaintiff while the parties litigate the merits of the plaintiff’s motion for
injunctive relief); Du v. United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 3:25-CV-644 (OAW),
2025 WL 1317944, at *2 (D. Conn. Apr. 24, 2025) (enjoining the defendants, under the
All Writs Act, from removing the plaintiffs from the District of Connecticut to preserve
the court’s jurisdiction).
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
1 Page numbers refer to those generated by the Court’s CM/ECF system.
Case 3:26-cv-00233-BJC-VET Document 3 Filed 01/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
26-cv-0233-BJC-VET
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
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Respondents shall file a response to the Petition and Application for a
Temporary Restraining Order no later than close of business on January
23, 2026.
2. Petitioner may file a reply no later than close of business on January 30,
2026.
3. Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons
acting in active concert or participation with them are hereby ENJOINED
from removing Petitioner from the United States or this District pending
further order of the Court, to maintain the status quo to allow the Court to
provide a reasoned decision to the request at hand.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 16, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-00233-BJC-VET Document 3 Filed 01/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3