Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1 3:26-cv-0691-AGS-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
Kumar SANDEEP,
Petitioner,
v.
Christopher LaROSE,
Respondent.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-0691-AGS-MMP
ORDER REQUIRING RETURN
Petitioner Kumar Sandeep seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to
free him from immigration detention. At this stage, he need only make out a claim that is
sufficiently cognizable to warrant an answer or return. See Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 4 (authorizing summary dismissal “if it
plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled
to relief”); id., Rule 1(b) (permitting application of Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases
to any “habeas corpus petition”). In this context, the relevant federal rules permit “summary
dismissal of claims that are clearly not cognizable.” Neiss v. Bludworth, 114 F.4th 1038,
1045 (9th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up). But “as long as a petition has any potential merit, it is
not so frivolous or incredible as to justify summary dismissal[.]” Id.
Petitioner has been in immigration detention since June 23, 2025, and argues that he
has been “unlawfull[y]” subjected to “pro[]longed detention” since then. (ECF 1, at 2, 6.)
Although thin on critical details—including how he came to be in immigration custody in
the first place, which is necessary to determine what statutory detention scheme he’s
subject to—petitioner’s claims are not frivolous. After all, some courts have concluded that
prolonged detention can violate due process, even for “arriving aliens” subject to
mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225. See, e.g., Kydyrali v. Wolf, 499 F. Supp. 3d
768, 772 (S.D. Cal. 2020) (“[T]he Court joins the majority of courts across the country in
Case 3:26-cv-00691-AGS-MMP Document 4 Filed 02/10/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2 3:26-cv-0691-AGS-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
concluding that an unreasonably prolonged detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) without an
individualized bond hearing violates due process.”). Thus, the government must respond.
By February 16, 2026, respondents must answer the petition. Any reply by
petitioner must be filed by February 24, 2026.
Dated: February 10, 2026
___________________________
Hon. Andrew G. Schopler
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-00691-AGS-MMP Document 4 Filed 02/10/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2