Singh v. Archambeault et al

1
3:26-cv-01076-RBM-BJW
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
KULJIT SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
GREGORY J. ARCHAMBEAULT, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-01076-RBM-BJW
ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS
PETITION ON SCREENING
[Docs. 1, 2]
On February 19, 2026, Petitioner Kuljit Singh (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for a
Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”) (Doc. 1) and a Motion
for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (“TRO Motion”) (Doc. 2).
For the reasons below, the Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice.
I. 	DISCUSSION
The Court must screen habeas corpus petitions to determine whether they are subject
to summary dismissal. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Summary
dismissal is appropriate where “it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any
attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Id.
A petition for a writ of habeas corpus must “allege the facts concerning the
[petitioner’s] commitment or detention [and] the name of the person who has custody over
Case 3:26-cv-01076-RBM-BJW Document 3 Filed 02/20/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
3:26-cv-01076-RBM-BJW
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
[the petitioner].” 	28 U.S.C. § 2242. 	“[I]n habeas challenges to present physical
confinement—‘core challenges’—the default rule is that the proper respondent is the
warden of the facility where the [petitioner] is being held, not the Attorney General or some
other remote supervisory official.” 	Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434 (2004). 	A
petitioner’s “failure to name the Facility Administrator [or warden] renders the district
court's exercise of jurisdiction erroneous.” 	Doe v. Garland, 109 F.4th 1188, 1194-95
(9th Cir. 2024); see also Cruz Banos v. Alberran, No. 1:25-cv-01634-DC-CSK (HC), 2025
WL 3312510, at *1–2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2025) (finding the court lacked jurisdiction over
a § 2241 petition where the petitioner failed to “name as a respondent the warden of the
facility where he is detained”). Here, Petitioner does not name as a respondent the warden
of Imperial Detention Facility. Therefore, summary dismissal of the Petition is required.
II. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, the Petition (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice and
the TRO Motion (Doc. 2) is DENIED as moot. Petitioner may file an amended Petition
and an amended TRO Motion addressing the issue identified above on or before
February 27, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: February 20, 2026
___________________________________
HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-01076-RBM-BJW Document 3 Filed 02/20/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2