(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
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
GRANT PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS, DENY MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AS MOOT,
DENY RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS, AND DIRECT RESPONDENTS
TO IMMEDIATELY RELEASE
PETITIONER
(ECF Nos. 1, 2, 10)
Petitioner, represented by counsel, is an immigration detainee proceeding with a petition
for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the reasons stated herein, the
undersigned recommends granting the petition for writ of habeas corpus on Count Two, denying
Respondents’ motion to dismiss, and ordering Petitioner’s immediate release.
I.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner was born in India and entered the United States on July 1, 2024 without
inspection and was briefly detained by Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) based on a
Form I-200 Warrant for Arrest of Alien. (ECF No. 1 at 4; ECF No. 1-3 at 3.) On July 1, 2024,
Petitioner was released by DHS on an Order of Release on Recognizance. (ECF No. 1 at 4; ECF
No. 1-3 at 2, 4.) The conditions of release required Petitioner to be placed on Alternative to
Case 1:26-cv-00028-JLT-EPG Document 12 Filed 01/27/26 Page 1 of 10

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
Detention (“ATD”) monitoring and mandated that Petitioner check in with Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). (ECF No. 1 at 4–5.) On the same date, DHS served Petitioner
with a Notice to Appear (“NTA”), which designated him as “an alien present in the United States
who has not been admitted or paroled” and charged him with removability pursuant to section
212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). (ECF No. 1 at 5; ECF No. 1-2
at 2.)
Following his release from detention, Petitioner timely filed a Form I-589, Application
for Asylum, with the immigration court. Petitioner also obtained gainful employment and
complied with all the conditions of his order of release. Petitioner has no criminal history. On
October 24, 2025, Petitioner was detained during a routine ICE check-in appointment, without
prior notice and despite the absence of any alleged violation of release conditions. (ECF No. 1 at
5.)
On January 5, 2025, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus and motion for
temporary restraining order (“TRO”), challenging his detention on substantive and procedural
due process grounds and as violative of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). (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.) On
January 21, 2026, Respondents filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 10.) That same day,
Petitioner filed a reply. (ECF No. 11.)
II.
DISCUSSION
A. Consolidation of Motion for Preliminary Injunction with the Merits
In the order setting the briefing schedule, the undersigned indicated that “[g]iven 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.” (ECF No. 7 at 1 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2)).)
Case 1:26-cv-00028-JLT-EPG Document 12 Filed 01/27/26 Page 2 of 10

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
3
In the motion to dismiss, Respondents “respectfully suggest that if the Court is inclined to
grant a preliminary injunction and deny the motion to dismiss the habeas petition, judicial
economy counsels that the Court should go further and enter a final judgment granting the
petition for writ of habeas corpus on the merits. Respondents do not seek a hearing.” (ECF No.
10 at 2.) In the reply, Petitioner requests the Court “[e]nter final judgment consistent with Rule
65(a)(2) and Respondents’ own request for judicial economy.” (ECF No. 11 at 7.)
Given that the petition and the motion for preliminary injunction raise the same claims
and seek identical relief, and for purposes of judicial efficiency, the undersigned recommends
“advanc[ing] the trial on the merits and consolidat[ing] it with” the motion for preliminary
injunction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2). See Dzhabrailov v. Decker, No. 20-CV-3118 (PMH), 2020
WL 2731966, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 26, 2020) (considering preliminary injunction and merits of
habeas petition simultaneously). See also 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (“The court shall summarily hear and
determine the facts, and dispose of [a petitioner’s habeas petition] as law and justice require.”).
A. Procedural Due Process
In Count Two, Petitioner asserts a violation of his procedural due process rights. (ECF
No. 1 at 9–10.) “We examine procedural due process questions in two steps: the first asks
whether there exists a liberty or property interest which has been interfered with by the State; the
second examines whether the procedures attendant upon that deprivation were constitutionally
sufficient.” Kentucky Dep’t of Corr. v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 460 (1989) (internal citations
omitted).
1. Liberty Interest
Respondents argue that “Petitioner is a citizen and national of India who entered the
United States illegally. He is then an ‘applicant for admission’ who is subject to mandatory
detention by ICE under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).” (ECF No. 10 at 2.)
“[T]he Due Process Clause applies to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including
aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” Zadvydas v.
Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001). “Freedom from imprisonment—from government custody,
detention, or other forms of physical restraint—lies at the heart of the liberty that Clause
Case 1:26-cv-00028-JLT-EPG Document 12 Filed 01/27/26 Page 3 of 10

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
4
protects.” Zadvydas at 690. In Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972), the Supreme Court
addressed whether due process requires a parolee be afforded some opportunity to be heard prior
to revocation of parole. 408 U.S. at 472. In examining “the nature of the interest of the parolee in
his continued liberty,” the Supreme Court stated:
The liberty of a parolee enables him to do a wide range of things
open to persons who have never been convicted of any crime. The
parolee has been released from prison based on an evaluation that
he shows reasonable promise of being able to return to society and
function as a responsible, self-reliant person. Subject to the
conditions of his parole, he can be gainfully employed and is free
to be with family and friends and to form the other enduring
attachments of normal life. Though the State properly subjects him
to many restrictions not applicable to other citizens, his condition
is very different from that of confinement in a prison. . . . The
parolee has relied on at least an implicit promise that parole will be
revoked only if he fails to live up to the parole conditions.
Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 482. The Supreme Court found “that the liberty of a parolee, although
indeterminate, includes many of the core values of unqualified liberty and its termination inflicts
a ‘grievous loss’ on the parolee and often on others” and held that “the liberty is valuable and
must be seen as within the protection of” due process. Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 482.
Relying on Morrissey, courts in this district have consistently held that noncitizens who
have been released from immigration custody pending civil removal proceedings have a
protected liberty interest in remaining out of immigration custody. See, e.g., Doe v. Becerra, 787
F. Supp. 3d 1083, 1093 (E.D. Cal. 2025); J.A.E.M. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01380-KES-HBK
(HC), 2025 WL 3013377, at *3–6 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2025); J.C.L.A. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-
01310-KES-EPG (HC), 2025 WL 2959250, at *3–5 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2025); Qazi v. Albarran,
No. 2:25-cv-02791-TLN-CSK, 2025 WL 3033713, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2025); Martinez
Hernandez v. Andrews, No. 1:25-cv-01035 JLT HBK, 2025 WL 2495767, at *10 (E.D. Cal.
Aug. 28, 2025); Yang v. Kaiser, No. 2:25-cv-02205-DAD-AC (HC), 2025 WL 2791778, at *8
(E.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2025); Maklad v. Murray, No. 1:25-cv-00946 JLT SAB, 2025 WL 2299376,
at *7–8 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2025). “Even assuming Respondents are correct that § 1225(b) is the
applicable detention authority for all ‘applicants for admission,’ Respondents fail to contend with
the liberty interest created by the fact that the Petitioner in this case was released on
Case 1:26-cv-00028-JLT-EPG Document 12 Filed 01/27/26 Page 4 of 10

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
5
recognizance[.]” Garcia v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01907-JLT-CDB, 2025 WL 3771348, at *9
(E.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2025). Accordingly, the undersigned recommends finding that Petitioner has
a protected liberty interest in remaining out of immigration custody.
2. Mathews Test
In Mathews, the Supreme Court held that “identification of the specific dictates of due
process generally requires consideration of three distinct factors”:
First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action;
second, the risk of erroneous deprivation of such interest through
the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or
substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s
interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and
administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural
requirements would entail.
Mathews, 424 U.S. at 334.
With respect to the first factor, the Court finds that the private interest at issue is
fundamental. The Ninth Circuit has recognized that it “is beyond dispute” an immigration
detainee’s “private interest at issue here is ‘fundamental’: freedom from imprisonment is at the
‘core of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.’” Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976,
993 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71, 80 (1992)).
With respect to the second factor, “‘the risk of an erroneous deprivation [of liberty] is
high’ where, as here, ‘[the petitioner] has not received any bond or custody redetermination
hearing.’” J.A.E.M., 2025 WL 3013377, at *7 (alterations in original) (quoting A.E. v. Andrews,
No. 1:25-cv-00107-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 871334, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2025)). “Civil
immigration detention, which is ‘nonpunitive in purpose and effect[,]’ is justified when a
noncitizen presents a risk of flight or danger to the community.” Omer G. G. v. Kaiser, No. 1:25-
cv-01471-KES-SAB (HC), 2025 WL 3254999, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2025) (alteration in
original) (quoting Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 690). Petitioner’s release on recognizance necessarily
required a determination that he posed neither a flight risk nor a danger. Rocha Chavarria v.
Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01755-DAD-AC, 2025 WL 3533606, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2025)
(citing 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(b); Noori v. Larose, No. 25-cv-1824-GPC-MSB, 2025 WL 2800149, at
*3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2025)); Saravia v. Sessions, 280 F. Supp. 3d 1168, 1176 (N.D. Cal. 2017)
Case 1:26-cv-00028-JLT-EPG Document 12 Filed 01/27/26 Page 5 of 10

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
6
(“The federal government sometimes releases noncitizens on bond or parole while their removal
proceedings are pending. Release reflects a determination by the government that the noncitizen
is not a danger to the community or a flight risk.”), aff’d sub nom. Saravia for A.H. v. Sessions,
905 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2018). Respondents do not argue that Petitioner is now a flight risk or a
danger to the community. “[A]s there have been no procedural safeguards to determine if
petitioner’s re-detention is justified, ‘the probable value of additional procedural safeguards, i.e.,
a bond hearing, is high.’” Sharan S. v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01427-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL
3167826, at *10 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2025) (quoting A.E., 2025 WL 1424382, at *5).
With respect to the third and final factor, “although the government has a strong interest
in enforcing the immigration laws, the government’s interest in detaining petitioner without a
hearing is ‘low.’” J.A.E.M., 2025 WL 3013377, at *7 (citing Ortega v. Bonnar, 415 F. Supp. 3d
963, 970 (N.D. Cal. 2019); Doe, 787 F. Supp. 3d at 1094). See Henriquez v. Garland, No. 5:22-
cv-00869-EJD, 2022 WL 2132919, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2022) (“Although the Government
has a strong interest in enforcing the immigration laws and in ensuring that lawfully issued
removal orders are promptly executed, the Government’s interest in detaining Petitioner without
providing an individualized bond hearing is low.”). Courts generally have found that the cost of
providing a custody hearing is relatively minimal, and there is nothing in the record before this
Court demonstrating that providing Petitioner with a pre-deprivation hearing would be fiscally or
administratively burdensome. See J.A.E.M., 2025 WL 3013377, at *7 (“In immigration court,
custody hearings are routine and impose a ‘minimal’ cost.” (citing Doe, 787 F. Supp. 3d at
1094)).
On balance, the Mathews factors show that Petitioner is entitled to notice and a bond
hearing and “[t]hat hearing should have occurred before petitioner was re-detained.” Carmen
G.C. v. Robbins, No. 1:25-cv-01648-KES-HBK (HC), 2025 WL 3521304, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Dec.
8, 2025).
“‘[T]he root requirement’ of the Due Process Clause” is “‘that an
individual be given an opportunity for a hearing before he is
deprived of any significant protected interest.’” Cleveland Bd. of
Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542 (1985) (quoting Boddie v.
Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 379 (1971)); see Zinermon, 494 U.S. at
Case 1:26-cv-00028-JLT-EPG Document 12 Filed 01/27/26 Page 6 of 10

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
7
127 (“Applying [the Mathews] test, the Court usually has held that
the Constitution requires some kind of a hearing before the State
deprives a person of liberty ....”). Courts typically require evidence
of urgent concerns or an especially strong government interest to
justify a post-deprivation hearing. See Guillermo M. R., 2025 WL
1983677, at *9; United States v. James Daniel Good Real Prop.,
510 U.S. 43, 53, 59–61 (1993) (“We tolerate some exceptions to
the general rule requiring predeprivation notice and hearing, but
only in extraordinary situations where some valid governmental
interest is at stake that justifies postponing the hearing until after
the event[,]” such as “executive urgency.” (internal quotations
omitted)).
Carmen G.C., 2025 WL 3521304, at *7.
At such a pre-deprivation hearing, the government bears the burden of proving by clear
and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk such that re-
detention is warranted. See Carmen G.C., 2025 WL 3521304, at *7 (“On balance, the Mathews
factors show that petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing where the government must prove that
she is a flight risk or danger to the community by clear and convincing evidence.”); J.E.H.G. v.
Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01673-JLT SKO, 2025 WL 3523108, at *14 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2025)
(“[T]he immigrant’s initial release reflected a determination by the government that the
noncitizen is not a danger to the community or a flight risk. Since it is the government that
initiated re-detention, it follows that the government should be required to bear the burden of
providing a justification for the re-detention.”).
Based on the foregoing, Petitioner has demonstrated that he has a strong liberty interest in
remaining out of custody, that the risk of erroneous deprivation will be meaningfully reduced by
requiring notice and a pre-detention hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, and that the
governmental burden in providing such procedure is quite minimal. Accordingly, the
undersigned recommends granting the petition on Count Two.1
B. Appropriate Relief
Courts in this district have taken differing approaches to the relief granted to petitioners
who have been released, subsequently re-detained, and denied bond hearings in violation of due
1 In light of this conclusion, the Court declines to address Petitioner’s substantive due process and
statutory claims.
Case 1:26-cv-00028-JLT-EPG Document 12 Filed 01/27/26 Page 7 of 10

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
8
process. In some cases, the immediate release of the petitioner has been ordered. See, e.g.,
Yurani Hortua v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01670-TLN-JDP, 2025 WL 3525916 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9,
2025) (ordering immediate release of petitioner who had been released from immigration
detention on parole, was arrested for theft but the case was resolved with community service and
did not result in a conviction, and was re-detained at a routine six-month check-in); Carmen
G.C., 2025 WL 3521304 (ordering immediate release of petitioner who allegedly violated
reporting requirements four times); Rocha Chavarria, 2025 WL 3533606 (ordering immediate
release of petitioner who allegedly “incurred compliance violations” that were not identified and
where respondents did not suggest the alleged violations were the reason for petitioner’s re-
detention).
In other cases, bond hearings have been ordered rather than immediate release. See, e.g.,
J.E.H.G., 2025 WL 3523108 (ordering bond hearing for petitioner who allegedly violated
reporting requirements numerous times and was re-detained based on said violations); Paz
Aguilera v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-01619 JLT SAB, 2025 WL 3485016 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2025)
(ordering bond hearing for petitioner who allegedly violated reporting requirements one time and
was re-detained based on said violation); Sharan S., 2025 WL 3167826 (ordering bond hearing
for petitioner who allegedly violated reporting requirements eight times).
Here, Respondents do not allege, and there is nothing in the record before this Court, that
Petitioner violated his conditions of release. Respondents do not contend that Petitioner is a
danger or flight risk. Accordingly, the Court finds that Petitioner’s immediate release is the
appropriate remedy.
C. Request for Abeyance Pending Ninth Circuit’s Rodriguez Vazquez Decision
In the motion to dismiss, Respondents raise an alternative argument with respect to “the
pending Ninth Circuit appeal in Rodriguez v. Bostock, 779 F.Supp.3d 1239 (W.D. Wash. 2025),
Ninth Circuit docket no. 25-6842. Because the issues in Rodriguez are likely to be dispositive of
the issues in this case, Respondents ask that any further briefing deadlines be held abeyance until
the resolution of the Rodriguez case.” (ECF No. 10 at 3.)
///
Case 1:26-cv-00028-JLT-EPG Document 12 Filed 01/27/26 Page 8 of 10

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
9
Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 779 F. Supp. 3d 1239, 1245 (W.D. Wash. 2025),
concerned a noncitizen who entered the United States without inspection, lived in the country for
fifteen years, was apprehended by ICE, and raised a statutory claim that he is detained under
§ 1226(a) and not subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2). The Court is doubtful that
the Ninth Circuit decision in Rodriguez Vazquez will have any bearing on the procedural due
process claim raised in the present case. In light of the recommendation that the petition be
granted on Count Two, the undersigned recommends denying Respondents’ request for abeyance
pending the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Rodriguez Vazquez.
III.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that:
1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) be GRANTED on Count Two.
2. Petitioner’s motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 2) be DENIED as moot.
3. Respondents’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 10) be DENIED.
4. Respondents be directed to immediately release Petitioner from custody with the same
conditions he was subject to immediately prior to his re-detention on October 24, 2025.
5. Respondents be enjoined and restrained from re-detaining Petitioner absent compliance
with constitutional protections, which include at a minimum, predeprivation notice of at
least seven days before a predeprivation hearing at which the government will bear the
burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that he is likely to flee or pose
a danger to the community if not arrested.
This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District
Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local
Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within
FOURTEEN (14) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, any party may file
written objections, no longer than fifteen (15) pages, including exhibits, with the Court and
serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate
Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served and filed
Case 1:26-cv-00028-JLT-EPG Document 12 Filed 01/27/26 Page 9 of 10

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
10
within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The assigned United States District
Court Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the
right to appeal the District Court’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir.
2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 26, 2026 /s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-00028-JLT-EPG Document 12 Filed 01/27/26 Page 10 of 10