Singh v. Warden of Port Isabel Detention Center

1 / 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
RAJPAL S.,
Petitioner,
VS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:26-CV-184
SARA SALINAS, as Lieutenant, Port Isabel
Detention Center,
Respondent.
ORDER
Petitioner Rajpal S. is currently detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the
Port Isabel Service Processing Center in Cameron County, Texas. (Pet., Doc. 1) Petitioner’s
daughter, Lena S., filed the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as next friend of Petitioner. (Id.)
The Petition contains allegations regarding statutory and constitutional violations concerning
Petitioner’s detention, and requests his immediate release from detention.
The record contains no indication that Lena S. is an attorney. On February 24, 2026, a
United States Magistrate Judge issued an Order (Doc. 7) requiring Petitioner to file a Statement
explaining why Singh may lawfully serve as next friend for Petitioner. The Order indicated that
“if the Court determines that the Statement does not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 17, the Court may dismiss the case without prejudice.” (Id. at 2)
On March 4, Petitioner submitted a Statement, arguing that Singh could represent him
because his anxiety and anguish diminish his competency, Singh possesses superior English skills
than Petitioner, his detention restricts his access to required resources such as printing and
copying, Respondents’ frequent relocation of Petitioner exacerbates his inability to represent
himself, and he lacks access to a lawyer. (Statement, Doc. 9)
On March 11, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending
that the Court dismiss the Petition without prejudice because Petitioner does not meet the
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 26, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 1:26-cv-00184 Document 12 Filed 03/26/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2 / 2
standard for incompetence under New York law, and Lena S. cannot otherwise represent
Petitioner in this Court. (R&R, Doc. 11) No party objected to the Report and Recommendation.
“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear
error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b),
Advisory Comm. Note (1983). The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and finds
no clear error within it.
As a result, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 11). It is:
ORDERED that Petitioner Rajpal S.’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Each party shall bear its own fees and costs.
This is a final and appealable order.
The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
Signed on March 26, 2026.
____________________________
Fernando Rodriguez, Jr.
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00184 Document 12 Filed 03/26/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2