Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
3:26-cv-00557-CAB-BLM
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
JOT PARKASH SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN OF IMPERIAL REGIONAL
DETENTION FACILITY, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-00557-CAB-BLM
ORDER TO RESPOND
Petitioner Jot Parkash Singh (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, [Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”),] and a motion for temporary
restraining order, [Doc. No. 2 (“TRO”)]. 	Petitioner claims prolonged detention by
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) since December 2025 in violation of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Fifth
Amendment. [Petition at 11–14.]
Having reviewed the petition, the Court finds summary dismissal is unwarranted at
this time. See Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary
dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory,
palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”). 	Therefore, the Court will order a
response to the Petition.
Case 3:26-cv-00557-CAB-BLM Document 3 Filed 01/30/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
3:26-cv-00557-CAB-BLM
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
Turning to the TRO, Petitioner requests that the Court “order Respondents to cease
any ongoing action and refrain from taking any additional actions toward effectuating
Petitioner’s removal from the United States, until the Court has adjudicated his petition
and complaint.” [TRO at 2.] While temporary restraining orders may be heard in true ex
parte fashion (i.e., without notice to an opposing party), the Court’s strong preference is
for the opposing party to be served and afforded a reasonable opportunity to file an
opposition. 	See Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers
Loc. No. 70 of Alameda Cnty., 415 U.S. 423, 438–39 (1974) (discussing ex parte temporary
restraining orders and their “stringent restrictions”); accord Reno Air Racing Ass’n, Inc. v.
McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006) (same); Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). 	This is
particularly true here where Petitioner’s motion for TRO concludes without any supporting
evidence that Respondents “seek to remove Petitioner . . . without affording him the
procedural protections guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment” or that he “continues to face
an imminent threat of removal.” [TRO at 2.]
The Court instead provides notice to the parties that it intends to consolidate the TRO
with a determination on the merits under Rule 65(a)(2). 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2); see
also Slidewaters LLC v. Wash. State Dep’t of Lab. & Indus., 4 F.4th 747, 759 (9th Cir.
2021) (noting the court can invoke Rule 65(a)(2) by giving “clear and unambiguous
notice”). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	Respondents shall file a response by February 6, 2026. The response must
address the allegations in the Petition and the motion for TRO and must include any
documents relevant to the determination of the issues raised.
2. 	Petitioner may file a reply by February 10, 2026.
3. 	To maintain the status quo, Respondents, their officers, agents, servants,
employees, 	attorneys, 	and 	other 	persons 	who 	act 	in 	concert 	or 	participation 	with
Case 3:26-cv-00557-CAB-BLM Document 3 Filed 01/30/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
3:26-cv-00557-CAB-BLM
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
Respondents 	SHALL NOT transfer 	Petitioner 	outside 	of 	the 	Southern 	District 	of
California pending the Court’s resolution of the Petition.1
4. 	The Clerk of Court shall provide the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s
Office with a copy of the Petition and this Order.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 30, 2026
1 See Doe v. Bondi, Case No. 3:25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025)
(“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether [they have]
subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from the court.”)
(collecting cases).
Case 3:26-cv-00557-CAB-BLM Document 3 Filed 01/30/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3