Singh v. Larose et al

1
26-cv-0576-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
Gurnoor SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
Christopher LaROSE, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-cv-0576-AGS-MMP
ORDER REQUIRING RETURN
Petitioner Gurnoor Singh 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 3, 2024,” petitioner, a native of “India,” “was apprehended” when he
arrived to “seek[] sanctuary protection in the U.S.” (ECF 1, at 2.) He has been detained
since. (Id. at 21.) The petition suggests that his asylum case is still pending. (Id. at 5.) He
claims that, in the interim, his “continued and lengthy detention without any bond hearing”
violates his “due process” rights. (Id. at 19.) So, he seeks “release” or a “bond hearing.”
(Id. at 25.)
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-00576-AGS-MMP Document 2 Filed 01/30/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
26-cv-0576-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
detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) without an individualized bond hearing violates due
process.”). Thus, the government must respond. By February 6, 2026, respondents must
answer the petition. Petitioner may reply by February 13, 2026. The Court will hold oral
argument on February 20, 2026, at 3:00 p.m.
Dated: January 30, 2026
___________________________
Hon. Andrew G. Schopler
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-00576-AGS-MMP Document 2 Filed 01/30/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2