Sharma v. Casey et al

- 1 - 26cv0513
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 SHARMA,
Petitioner,
v.
GREGORY J. ARCHAMBRAULT, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No. 26-cv-00513-BAS-SBC
ORDER:
(1) 	REQUIRING THE
GOVERNMENT TO RESPOND
TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS (ECF No. 1);
(2) 	GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION
FOR ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE (ECF No. 2)
(3) 	SETTING BRIEFING
SCHEDULE ON MOTION FOR
INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF (ECF No. 3); AND
(4) 	PROVIDING NOTICE UNDER
RULE 65(a)(2)
On November 27, 2025, Petitioner Pardeep Sharma filed a Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in Case No. 25-cv-03335-BAS-DDL.
Petitioner claimed that he was being detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Case 3:26-cv-00513-BAS-SBC Document 6 Filed 01/29/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

- 2 - 26cv0513
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
without a bond determination in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its associated
regulations, as well as the Fifth Amendment. After briefing, on December 18, 2025, the
Court granted the Petition. The Court ordered the Respondents to provide Petitioner with
a bond hearing within fourteen days.
On January 27, 2026, Petitioner filed the present action, which again seeks relief
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Petition shows that an Immigration Judge denied bond in a
written decision dated January 26, 2026. (Pet. Ex. E.) Petitioner argues the denial of bond
in his circumstances violates the Due Process Clause. (Id. ¶¶ 53–60.)
In addition, Petitioner filed a Motion for Order to Show Cause. 	(ECF No. 2.)
Petitioner asks the Court to require the Government to respond to the Petition within three
days under the procedures set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2243.
Further, Petitioner filed an Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
(“Motion for Injunctive Relief”). 	(ECF No. 3.) 	Petitioner asks the Court to order his
immediate release from ICE custody. (Id.)
Finally, on January 28, 2026, Petitioner filed a Supplemental Brief in support of his
Petition and Motion for Injunctive Relief. (ECF No. 4.) Petitioner states his final asylum
merits hearing is scheduled for February 3, 2026, and he again seeks immediate release.
(Id.)
Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds summary dismissal is unwarranted at
this time. See Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary
dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory,
palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”). 	Therefore, the Court will order the
Government to respond to the Petition. 	However, to promote the uniform treatment of
similarly situated Section 2241 petitions challenging immigration custody, the Court finds
it appropriate to require the Government to respond to the Petition within seven days of the
date of this Order.
Turning to the Motion for Injunctive Relief, the Court denies the ex parte request for
a temporary restraining order. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). 	“While temporary restraining
Case 3:26-cv-00513-BAS-SBC Document 6 Filed 01/29/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

- 3 - 26cv0513
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
orders may be heard in true ex parte fashion (i.e., without notice to an opposing party), the
Court will do so only in extraordinary circumstances. The Court’s strong preference is for
the opposing party to be served and afforded a reasonable opportunity to file an
opposition.” 	Standing Order for Civil Cases § 9; see also Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v.
Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Loc. No. 70 of Alameda Cnty., 415 U.S. 423, 438–
39 	(1974) 	(discussing 	ex 	parte 	temporary 	restraining 	orders 	and 	their 	“stringent
restrictions”); accord Reno Air Racing Ass’n, Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th
Cir. 2006) (same). Thus, the Court will instead consider the Motion for Injunctive Relief
under Rule 65(a) and provide the Government with an opportunity to respond.
Finally, the Court provides notice to the parties that it intends to consolidate the
Motion for Injunctive Relief with a determination on the merits under Rule 65(a)(2). 	See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2); see also Slidewaters LLC v. Wash. State Dep’t of Lab. & Indus.,
4 F.4th 747, 759 (9th Cir. 2021) (noting the court can invoke Rule 65(a)(2) by giving “clear
and unambiguous notice”).
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	The Government must file a response to the Petition and the Motion for
Injunctive Relief no later than February 5, 2026. 	The Government’s response must
address the allegations in the Petition and must include any documents relevant to the
determination of the issues raised in the Petition.
2. 	Petitioner may file a reply in support of his Petition and the Motion for
Injunctive Relief no later than February 12, 2026.
3. 	Given the Court’s briefing schedule, the Court GRANTS IN PART and
DENIES IN PART the Motion for Order to Show Cause. (ECF No. 2.)
4. 	The Clerk of Court shall provide the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s
Office with a copy of the Petition (ECF No. 1), the Motion for Injunctive Relief (ECF No.
3), and this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 29, 2026
Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Case 3:26-cv-00513-BAS-SBC Document 6 Filed 01/29/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3