Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
SAGAR DUHAN,
Petitioner,
v.
Case No. 2:26-cv-00019-MIS-JFR
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security; PAMELA BONDI,
U.S. Attorney General; HECTOR RIOS,
Warden of the Otero County Processing
Center; TODD M. LYONS, Acting Director
of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
and Removal Operations; and MARY DE
ANDA-YBARRA, Regional Director, Field
Office Director of Enforcement and Removal
Operations, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement,
Respondents.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME,
CONTINUING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING, AND ENJOINING
RESPONDENTS FROM TRANSFERRING PETITIONER DURING THE PENDENCY
OF THIS ACTION
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the federal Respondents’ Motion for Extension of
Time to Respond to the Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus (“Motion”), ECF No. 8, filed January 8, 2026. Respondents assert that “[t]he
present timeline to respond in writing to a motion not served on the Respondents does not provide
Respondents with sufficient time to consult the appropriate agencies, review the necessary
documents, and prepare a defense.” Mot. ¶ 5. They assert that “[r]equiring compliance with the
currently scheduled timelines would produce an inadequate brief or record and prevent the Court
from issuing a thorough and informed decision on the merits . . . .” Id. ¶ 11. They request that the
Court extend the deadline to respond to the Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction to one
Case 2:26-cv-00019-MIS-JFR Document 11 Filed 01/09/26 Page 1 of 4

2
week after they are properly served with it, and request that the Court extend the deadline to
respond to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus to two weeks after they are properly served with
it. Id. ¶ 13. In this regard, the federal Respondents state that Petitioner’s counsel did not properly
serve them with the Emergency Motion and Petition pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure because service did “not include a summons, as required under Rule 4(i).” Id. ¶ 14.
Petitioner Sagar Duhan filed a Response to the Motion on January 9, 2026 (“Response”).
ECF No. 10. Petitioner opposes any extension on the grounds that the federal Respondents do not
actually need additional time to develop arguments and review the record to prepare their response,
as the Government has litigated several hundred cases involving the same issue in recent weeks.
Id. at 2. Petitioner further argues that the federal Respondents are in possession of both the
Emergency Motion and Petition, but he appears to concede that service did not include the Form
Summons. Id. at 2-3.
To begin with, the Court did not relieve Petitioner of his obligation to properly serve
Respondents pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A federal court may not exercise
personal jurisdiction over a defendant (or respondent) unless he or she has been properly served.
Before a federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the
procedural requirement of service of summons must be satisfied. “[S]ervice of
summons is the procedure by which a court having venue and jurisdiction of the
subject matter of the suit asserts jurisdiction over the person of the party served.”
Mississippi Publishing Corp. v. Murphree, 326 U.S. 438, 444–445, 66 S.Ct. 242,
245–246, 90 L.Ed. 185 (1946). Thus, before a court may exercise personal
jurisdiction over a defendant, there must be more than notice to the defendant and
a constitutionally sufficient relationship between the defendant and the forum.
There also must be a basis for the defendant’s amenability to service of summons.
Absent consent, this means there must be authorization for service of summons on
the defendant.
Omni Cap. Int’l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., Ltd., 484 U.S. 97, 104 (1987). See also Okla. Radio
Assocs. v. F.D.I.C., 969 F.2d 940, 943 (10th Cir. 1992) (“Rule 4 service of process provides the
Case 2:26-cv-00019-MIS-JFR Document 11 Filed 01/09/26 Page 2 of 4

3
mechanism by which a court having venue and jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action
asserts jurisdiction over the person of the party served.”); Limpin v. United States, Case No.: 17-
CV-1729-JLS (WVG), 2017 WL 4870382, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2017) (“Plaintiff has not
adequately effectuated service. Although Plaintiff has declared he served his Complaint and
Motions on the U.S. Attorney’s Office, (see ECF No. 1-2), Rule 4(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure requires that, in order to properly serve the United States or its agencies, corporations,
or officers, a plaintiff must deliver a copy of the summons and the complaint to the U.S. Attorney’s
Office for the district in which the action is brought, as well as to the Attorney General of the
United States. Therefore, the Court cannot grant Plaintiffs injunctive relief because it has no
personal jurisdiction over Defendant at this time.”). As such, the Court will grant the federal
Respondents’ an extension of the deadline to respond to the Emergency Motion and Petition until
after they have been properly served (or have waived service).
However, the Court agrees with Petitioner that the Government’s argument that it requires
more time to develop arguments and review the record to prepare their response is spurious. Over
the past several weeks, the Government has been required to defend at least several hundred
virtually identical cases. They require very little factual development and turn almost entirely on
a legal issue—specifically, an interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act—that the
Government has briefed innumerable times. Significantly, the Government’s argument has been
rejected innumerable times, resulting in innumerable findings that these petitioners are being
illegally detained. See, e.g., Intriago-Sedgwick v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-01065-MIS-LF, 2025 WL
3688155 (D.N.M. Dec. 19, 2025), report and recommendation adopted No. 1:25-cv-01065-MIS-
LF, ECF No. 27 (D.N.M. Jan. 6, 2026). Therefore, the Court will not grant Respondents’ requested
extension. Instead, the Court will extend the federal Respondents’ deadline to respond to the
Case 2:26-cv-00019-MIS-JFR Document 11 Filed 01/09/26 Page 3 of 4

4
Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus to three
days after it is properly served with them. Counsel for Petitioner shall file a Certificate of Service
on the docket when he has properly served Respondents.
The hearing on Petitioner’s Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction is hereby
CONTINUED and will promptly be reset by separate notice after the federal Respondents respond
to the Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
To preserve the status quo in the interim, Respondents are ENJOINED from transferring
Petitioner Sagar Duhan from the District of New Mexico while these proceedings remain pending.
………………………………………….
MARGARET STRICKLAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:26-cv-00019-MIS-JFR Document 11 Filed 01/09/26 Page 4 of 4