(HC) Singh v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility, 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
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RABANPREET SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN OF THE GOLDEN STATE
ANNEX DETENTION FACILITY, et al.,
Respondents.
No. 1:25-cv-01752-JLT-SKO (HC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
PETITION SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED
[THIRTY DAY DEADLINE]
Petitioner has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his indefinite detention
by the United States Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”).
Petitioner states he is an immigrant who has been continuously detained by ICE since
approximately February 21, 2025. Petitioner contends that his prolonged detention without a
bond hearing to determine whether he is a danger to the public or a flight risk violates his due
process rights.
Because Petitioner may be entitled to relief if the claimed violations are proved,
Respondent IS ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should not be granted. Rule 4,
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; see Rule 1(b), Rule 11, Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases; Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(a)(2). Respondent SHALL INCLUDE a copy of Petitioner’s Alien File
and any and all other documentation relevant to the determination of the issues raised in the
Case 1:25-cv-01752-SKO Document 5 Filed 12/10/25 Page 1 of 2

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
petition. Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the event the Petitioner is
released from ICE custody during the pendency of this Petition, the parties SHALL notify the
Court by filing a Motion to Dismiss the Petition or other proper pleading.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Respondent is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should not be
granted. The Response to the Order to Show Cause is due within THIRTY (30)
days of the date of service of this order.
2. Petitioner may file a Traverse to the Response within THIRTY (30) days of the
date the Response to the Order to Show Cause is filed with the Court.
The Court has determined that this matter is suitable for decision without oral argument
pursuant to Local Rule 230(h). As such, the matter will be taken under submission following the
filing of Petitioner’s Traverse or the expiration of the time for filing the Traverse. All other
briefing in this action is suspended.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 9, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-01752-SKO Document 5 Filed 12/10/25 Page 2 of 2