Gharti Magar v. LaRose

1
26-cv-0735-AGS-VET
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
Padam GHARTI MAGAR,
Petitioner,
v.
Christopher LaROSE,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-cv-0735-AGS-VET
ORDER REQUIRING RETURN
Unrepresented petitioner Padam Gharti Magar seeks a writ of habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his immigration detention. At this stage, he need only make
out a claim that is sufficiently cognizable to warrant a response. 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 court to apply 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.
On “January 5, 2025,” petitioner, a native of “Nepal,” was apprehended when he
came to the United States to seek sanctuary. (ECF 1, at 9.) He has been detained since. (Id.)
He received a “positive” “credible fear” finding, but his immigration proceedings are still
pending. (Id.) He asserts that his detention is “prolonged” and “unlawful[]” “with[]out
adequate justification.” (Id. at 6.) So, he seeks “release” or a “bond hearing.” (Id. at 2.)
Some courts have concluded that prolonged detention for arriving aliens under
8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) can violate due process, so this claim is not frivolous or incredible. 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 concluding that an unreasonably prolonged
Case 3:26-cv-00735-AGS-VET Document 2 Filed 02/18/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
26-cv-0735-AGS-VET
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
detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) without an individualized bond hearing violates due
process.”). Thus, the government must respond. By February 24, 2026, respondents must
answer the petition. Petitioner may reply by February 27, 2026. The Court will hold oral
argument on March 3, 2026, at 1:00 p.m. If Gharti Magar is not represented by counsel
by that time, respondent’s counsel must coordinate his remote appearance, preferably by
videoconference.
Dated: February 18, 2026
___________________________
Hon. Andrew G. Schopler
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-00735-AGS-VET Document 2 Filed 02/18/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2