Singh v. Casey et al

1
3:26-cv-782-CAB-MMP
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
GUARAVPREET SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
JEREMY CASEY, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-782-CAB-MMP
ORDER:
(1) GRANTING WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS; and
(2) DENYING MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER AS MOOT [Doc. No. 2].
Petitioner Guaravpreet 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 a
temporary restraining order, [Doc. No. 2 (“TRO”)]. Respondents have filed their response
to the Petition. [Doc. No. 5.] The Court finds this case appropriate for determination on
the papers. 	See CivLR 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons discussed below, the Court ORDERS
Respondents to immediately release Petitioner from custody under the same conditions
which existed immediately prior to Petitioner’s re-detention.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Petitioner is an Indian citizen who entered the United States on March 2, 2023.
[Petition at 1.] 	He was detained by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) that
day and then released on his own recognizance. [Id.] Petitioner claims that Immigration
Case 3:26-cv-00782-CAB-MMP Document 6 Filed 02/19/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 4

2
3:26-cv-782-CAB-MMP
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
and 	Customs 	Enforcement 	(“ICE”) 	improperly 	re-detained 	him 	without 	notice 	on
December 11, 2025 while he was at a gas station in the course of his work as a commercial
truck driver. [Id. at 5.] Petitioner claims that he is being unlawfully detained in violation
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
[Id. at 9–22.] He seeks immediate release from custody. [Id. at 22–23.]
Respondents do not contest any of Petitioner’s asserted facts. [See generally Doc.
No. 5.] Instead, Respondents assert that Petitioner is “entitled to an order from this Court
directing a bond hearing be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).” [Id. at 2.]
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
A writ of habeas corpus challenges the legality of a petitioner’s custody and seeks
to secure release from that illegal custody. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a district court may
grant a writ of habeas corpus when the petitioner “is in custody in violation of the
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” The petitioner bears the burden of
demonstrating that he is in illegal custody. See Martinez v. Noem, No. 25-CV-2740-BJC-
BJW, 2025 WL 3171738, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2025).
III. 	DISCUSSION
Petitioner argues that he has a protected liberty interest in his prior release, which
Respondents violated when they re-detained him on July 22, 2025. [Petition at 5, 9–14.]
Respondents do not address this argument at all.
The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be
“deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. V.
“Freedom from imprisonment—from government custody, detention, or other forms of
physical restraint—lies at the heart of the liberty that Clause protects.” Zadvydas v. Davis,
533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001). This protection applies to noncitizens as it does to U.S. citizens.
See Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 238 (1896) (“[E]ven aliens shall not . . . be
deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”).
“Courts have previously found that individuals released from immigration custody
on bond have a protectable liberty interest in remaining out of custody[.]” Valencia Zapata
Case 3:26-cv-00782-CAB-MMP Document 6 Filed 02/19/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 4

3
3:26-cv-782-CAB-MMP
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
v. Kaiser, No. 25-CV-07492-RFL, 2025 WL 2578207, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2025)
(listing cases). Indeed, “the government’s decision to release an individual from custody
creates an implicit promise, upon which that individual may rely, that their liberty will be
revoked only if they fail to live up to the conditions of release.” 	Pinchi v. Noem, 792 F.
Supp. 3d 1025, 1032 (N.D. Cal. July 24, 2025) (cleaned up) (internal quotation marks
omitted) (citing Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 482 (1972)).
In Valencia Zapata, the Northern District of California granted a TRO for a group
of aliens who were detained by U.S. immigration officials, released on their own
recognizance, and then re-detained by ICE without explanation. 2025 WL 2578207, at *2.
The court held that the petitioners had a protectable liberty interest in remaining out of
custody and thus had to be given notice and a hearing prior to being taken back into
custody. 	Id. at *3. 	The operative facts here are identical. 	Petitioner was detained by
immigration officials, released on his own recognizance, and then re-detained without
notice or a hearing. Petitioner received no notification or individualized reason as to why
his release was being revoked. Nor have Respondents explained, even after the fact, what
circumstances have changed to warrant Petitioner’s re-detention. And though Respondents
now claim he is entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), they do not explain
how Petitioner was lawfully detained in the first place. Giving Petitioner a bond hearing
now would not remedy the Fifth Amendment violation he has already experienced. Only
release from detention can accomplish that now.
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
Case 3:26-cv-00782-CAB-MMP Document 6 Filed 02/19/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 4

4
3:26-cv-782-CAB-MMP
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
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the petition for a writ of habeas
corpus and ORDERS Respondents to immediately release Petitioner from custody under
the same conditions which existed immediately prior to Petitioner’s re-detention on
December 11, 2025. The motion for temporary restraining order is DENIED as moot. The
Clerk of the Court shall close the case.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 19, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-00782-CAB-MMP Document 6 Filed 02/19/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 4