Kumar v. Casey et al

1
26-cv-0758-AGS-JLB
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
Pardeep KUMAR,
Petitioner,
v.
Jeremy CASEY, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-cv-0758-AGS-JLB
ORDER REQUIRING RETURN
Petitioner Pardeep Kumar 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 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.
On “01/03/2023,” Kumar, a “citizen of India,” entered the United States. (ECF 1,
at 5.) Almost 	three years 	later, on 	“December 3, 2025,” he was 	apprehended 	by
Immigration and Customs Enforcement and “has been in immigration detention since.”
(Id.) Kumar is now challenging the government’s decision to subject him to mandatory
detention under “8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).” (Id.) He asserts that his case is instead governed
by “8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)”—which authorizes release on bond or conditional parole—and
that he is a member of a class action (Maldonado Bautista) which won declaratory relief
to that effect. (Id. at 7.)
This challenge has sufficient potential merit to warrant a response. Although the only
Court of Appeals to address this question has rejected Kumar’s position, see Buenrostro-
Case 3:26-cv-00758-AGS-JLB Document 2 Filed 02/10/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
26-cv-0758-AGS-JLB
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
Mendez v. Bondi, No. 25-20496, __ F.4th ___, 2026 WL 323330, at *4 (5th Cir. Feb. 6,
2026), functionally identical cases across the country have succeeded in great number, see,
e.g., Maldonado Bautista v. Noem, No. 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-BFM, 2025 WL 3678485,
at *1 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025) (class action final judgment); Barco Mercado v. Francis,
___ F. Supp. 3d. ___, No. 25-cv-6582 (LAK), 2025 WL 3295903, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26,
2025) (noting that, in “350” of the “362” opinions to address this issue, the petitioners
“prevailed, either on a preliminary or final basis,” and these cases were “decided by over
160 different judges sitting in about fifty different courts”); Mosqueda v. Noem, No. 5:25-
cv-02304 CAS (BFM), 2025 WL 2591530, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2025) (“[P]etitioners
are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims because section 1226(a), not section
1225(b)(2), likely governs their detention.”); Vazquez v. Feeley, No. 2:25-cv-01542-RFB-
EJY, 2025 WL 2676082, at *11 (D. Nev. Sept. 17, 2025) (same); Rodriguez v. Bostock,
No. 3:25-cv-05240-TMC, 2025 WL 2782499, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2025) (“[T]he
government’s 	position 	belies 	the 	statutory 	text 	of 	the 	INA, 	canons 	of 	statutory
interpretation, legislative history, and longstanding agency practice.”).
So, by February 17, 2026, the government is ordered to file a return to Kumar’s
petition. Kumar must file any traverse by February 24, 2026. The Court will hold oral
arguments on March 3, 2026, at 2:00 p.m.
Dated: February 10, 2026
___________________________
Hon. Andrew G. Schopler
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-00758-AGS-JLB Document 2 Filed 02/10/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2