Southern District of California • 3:26-cv-00734

#1

Feb 06, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Christopher LaRose, Otay Mesa Detention Center ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 166847, Fee Paid, IFP Not Filed), filed by Sudhir Kumar Roka. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Receipt)The new case number is 3:26-cv-734-JO-DEB. Judge Jinsook Ohta and Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Butcher are assigned to the case.(bdc) (Entered: 02/13/2026)

#2

Feb 13, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: On February 13, 2026, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus requesting injunctive relief. Dkt. 1. The Court ORDERS Respondents TO SHOW CAUSE why the petition should not be granted by filing a written response no later than 5:00 PM on Monday, February 23, 2026. The Court further ORDERS Respondents to file, as exhibits to their response, the complete set of Petitioner's immigration records necessary for adjudication of this habeas petition, including all Department of Homeland Security records, immigration court documents, arrest or custody records, and any other materials pertaining to Petitioner's detention, processing, or removal proceedings. Unless Respondents concede that Petitioner is entitled to the complete relief requested in the habeas petition, Respondents must comply with this order by filing the complete set of Petitioner's immigration records.The Court SETS a hearing with oral argument for Thursday, February 26, 2026 at 9:30 AM. All parties may appear by videoconference for the hearing. The courtroom deputy will provide the videoconference information ahead of the hearing. The hearing will proceed unless the Court issues a written decision on the merits ahead of the hearing date. The parties are directed to check the docket at 5:00 PM on the day before the hearing to determine whether such an order has issued and the hearing has been vacated.The Court ORDERS that Petitioner shall not be transferred out of this District unless Respondents provide advance notice of the intended move. Such notice shall be filed in writing on the docket in this proceeding and shall state the reason why Respondents believe that such a movement is necessary and should not be stayed pending further court proceedings. Once that notice has been docketed, Petitioner SHALL NOT be moved out of this District for a period of at least 48 hours from the time of that docketing. The Clerk of Court shall transmit a copy of this Order and the Petition [Dkt. 1] to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 2/13/2026. (mk) (Entered: 02/13/2026)

Feb 13, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#3

Feb 17, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance and Substitution of Counsel by Robbin O. Lee on behalf of Christopher LaRose, Otay Mesa Detention Center (Lee, Robbin)Attorney Robbin O. Lee added to party Christopher LaRose(pty:res), Attorney Robbin O. Lee added to party Otay Mesa Detention Center(pty:res) (rxc). (Entered: 02/17/2026)

#4

Feb 23, 2026

Return to Petition for Writ of H/C

#5

Feb 25, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Sudhir Kumar Roka, a citizen of Nepal proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his prolonged detention as a violation of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. Dkt. 1. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the habeas petition. 1. On January 8, 2025, Petitioner entered the United States illegally to seek asylum. Dkt. 1 at 9. He was immediately detained by immigration officials and placed in expedited removal proceedings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1). Dkt. 1 at 9; Dkt. 4 at 4. On March 21, 2025, an asylum officer determined that Petitioner had a credible fear of persecution if returned to Nepal. Dkt. 1 at 9; Dkt. 4 at 4. As a result, DHS placed Petitioner into standard removal proceedings under § 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and continued to hold him in custody pending those proceedings. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a; see 8 CFR § 208.30; Dkt. 4 at 4. On July 2, 2025, Petitioner filed his application for asylum, which remains pending. Dkt. 1 at 9; Dkt. 4 at 45. His individual merits hearing was initially scheduled for December 19, 2025, and rescheduled to May 27, 2026 due to Petitioner's health problems. Dkt. 1 at 9; Dkt. 4 at 4. 2. For the reasons stated in Pacheco v. LaRose, No. 3:25-CV-2421-JO-AHG, 2026 WL 242300, *2*7 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2026), the Court finds that 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(g), (a)(5), and (b)(9) do not bar Petitioner's collateral challenge to the constitutionality and legality of his current detention. See Pet. at 1. 3. For the reasons stated on the record in Raeva v. Mayorkas, No. 3:25-cv-03175, Dkts. 16, 17, the Court examines whether, notwithstanding statutory authorization, Petitioners prolonged detention without a bond hearing violates the Due Process Clause. As explained in Raeva, the Court considers the likely duration of detentionboth elapsed and anticipatedand whether Petitioner has delayed proceedings in bad faith. Here, Petitioner has been detained for over thirteen months as of the date of this order and has yet to receive his individual merits hearing. Dkt. 1 at 6; Dkt. 4 at 4. Further appeals from either side would extend detention by at least several months, such that the total period of confinement could approach or exceed two years without any showing of bad faith by Petitioner. This duration of civil detention without a bond hearing gravely risks the erroneous deprivation of Petitioner's liberty interest, especially here when the record contains no evidence that he presents a danger to the community or a flight risk or that the government has another legitimate interest in his continued detention. See Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 994 (9th Cir. 2017); see also Pinchi v. Noem, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1035 (N.D. Cal. 2025) ("Detention for its own sake... is not a legitimate government interest."). 4. The Court therefore finds that Petitioner's prolonged detention without a bond hearing violates his Fifth Amendment due process rights. The Court's ruling and injunctive terms are set forth in a separate order at Dkt. 6. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 02/25/2026. (rh) (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (rxc). (Entered: 02/25/2026)

#6

Feb 25, 2026

Order AND ~Util - Terminate Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings

Feb 25, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#7

Mar 05, 2026

Notice (Other)

#8

Mar 12, 2026

Notice (Other)

#9

Mar 12, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: On March 12, 2026, Respondents filed a notice of compliance confirming that Petitioner was provided a bond hearing in compliance with this Court's order. Dkt. 8. The immigration judge ordered Petitioner released on $1,500 bond, but imposed as conditions of release that "[Petitioner] must self-quarantine/isolate for the first fourteen (14) days following release from DHS custody and arrival at sponsors residence; [and Petitioner] shall not be released from DHS custody until cleared from medical hold." See id. The Court ORDERS Respondents to file a status report explaining the basis for the medical hold and the date that the hold will be cleared. The status report is due by 12 p.m. on March 16, 2026. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 03/12/2026. (rh) (Entered: 03/12/2026)

Mar 12, 2026

Minute Order (No Time) AND ~Util - Set Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings

#10

Mar 16, 2026

STATUS REPORT Confirming Petitioner's Release by Christopher LaRose, Otay Mesa Detention Center. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of DO Townsend, # 2 Certificate of Service on pro se petitioner)(Lee, Robbin) (Entered: 03/16/2026)