Kumar v. LaRose et al

1
3:26-cv-00490-RBM-SBC
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
PRINCE KUMAR,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-00490-RBM-SBC
ORDER GRANTING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
[Doc. 1]
Pending before the Court is Petitioner Prince Kumar’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”). (Doc. 1.) For the reasons set
forth below, the Court GRANTS the Petition.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen and national of India. (Doc. 1-2 at 1.) He entered the United
States on March 12, 2023 through the Mexico-United States border. 	(Doc. 1 at 4.) 	On
March 15, 2023, United States Border Patrol issued Petitioner a Notice to Appear, charging
him as inadmissible under the Immigration and Nationality Act as “an alien present in the
United States without being admitted or paroled.” (Doc. 3-1 at 5.) On March 16, 2023,
Petitioner was released from custody on an Order of Recognizance, “contingent upon [his]
enrollment and successful participation in an Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program as
designated by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.” (Doc. 1-2 at 3–7.)
Case 3:26-cv-00490-RBM-SBC Document 6 Filed 02/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
3:26-cv-00490-RBM-SBC
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
Petitioner violated some of the conditions of his Order on Recognizance, including
by missing required check-ins and being outside a designated geographic area without
notifying immigration officials. (Doc. 3 at 2 (citing Doc. 3-1 at 2–3).) As a result of these
violations, Respondents detained Petitioner on August 11, 2025. (Id.) Petitioner has been
detained in Otay Mesa Detention Center since then. (Doc. 1 at 5.)
On January 21, 2026, Petitioner filed the Petition. 	(Doc. 1.) 	The Court issued a
briefing schedule and Order to Show Cause on January 27, 2026. (Doc. 2.) On February
4, 2026, Respondents filed their Response to Petition (“Response”). (Doc. 3.)1
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United
States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) (citing U.S. Const., Art. I, § 9, cl. 2).
“The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that
custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal
custody.” 	Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). “Writs of habeas corpus may
be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit
judge within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). The petitioner bears the
burden of demonstrating that “[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or
treaties of the United States.” Id. § 2241(c)(3).
III. 	DISCUSSION
Petitioner argues that the revocation of his Order on Recognizance and his
subsequent detention without a bond hearing violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process
Clause. (See Doc. 1 at 4–5.) 	Respondents concede that Petitioner, as a class member of
the Bond Eligible Class certified in Bautista v. Santacruz,2 is detained under 8 U.S.C.
1 Petitioner was authorized to file an optional reply on or before February 16, 2026.
(Doc. 2 at 2.) Given Respondents’ concession that Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing,
and the adequacy of the record before it, the Court resolves the Petition without the aid of
Petitioner’s optional reply.
2 Bautista v. Santacruz, — F. Supp. 3d —, 2025 WL 3288403 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2025).
Case 3:26-cv-00490-RBM-SBC Document 6 Filed 02/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
3:26-cv-00490-RBM-SBC
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
§ 1226(a) and entitled to a bond hearing. 	(Doc. 5 at 2.) 	Because the Parties agree that
Petitioner is detained under § 1226 and entitled to a bond hearing, the Court GRANTS the
Petition.
IV. 	CONCLUSION3
The Petition (Doc. 1) is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:
1. Respondents shall provide Petitioner with a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a) within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this Order. At the bond hearing,
Respondents 	shall bear the burden 	of establishing, by 	clear and 	convincing
evidence,4 that Petitioner poses a danger to the community or a risk of flight.5
2. If the bond hearing is not conducted within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this
Order, Respondents shall release Petitioner from custody until it is determined that
his detention is warranted under § 1226(a).
3. On or before February 20, 2026, Respondents shall file a status report indicating
whether and when Petitioner received a bond hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: February 5, 2026
___________________________________
HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3 The Court declines to address the Petition’s remaining grounds for relief.
4 See Sadeqi v. LaRose, — F. Supp. 3d —, 2025 WL 3154520, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 12,
2025) (“Petitioner is entitled to a prompt and individualized bond hearing, at which
Respondents must justify her continued detention by a showing of clear and convincing
evidence that Petitioner would likely flee or pose a danger to the community if released.”)
(citing Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1203 (9th Cir. 2011), abrogated on other grounds
by Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018) (explaining that “the substantial liberty
interest at stake” warranted placing the burden on the government to “prove by clear and
convincing evidence that [a noncitizen] is a flight risk or a danger to the community to
justify denial of bond”)).
5 This relief has been granted in similar matters. 	See Duong v. Kaiser, 800 F. Supp. 3d
1030, 1042–43 (N.D. Cal. 2025).
Case 3:26-cv-00490-RBM-SBC Document 6 Filed 02/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3