Southern District of California • 3:26-cv-01970

#1

Mar 27, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Christopher LaRose ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 168121.), filed by Singh Harpreet. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Receipt, # 3 Envelope)The new case number is 3:26-cv-1970-TWR-SBC. Judge Todd W. Robinson and Magistrate Judge Steve B. Chu are assigned to the case.(axc1) (Entered: 03/30/2026)

#2

Mar 27, 2026

MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Singh Harpreet. (axc1) (Entered: 03/30/2026)

#3

Mar 31, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#4

Mar 31, 2026

Notice of Related Case

#5

Apr 01, 2026

MINUTE ORDER OF TRANSFER. Judge Todd W. Robinson, Magistrate Judge Steve B. Chu is no longer assigned. Case reassigned to Judge Jinsook Ohta and Magistrate Judge Brian J. White for all further proceedings. The new case number is 26CV1970-JO-BJW.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(no document attached) (jpp) (Entered: 04/01/2026)

Apr 01, 2026

Order of Judge Transfer

#6

Apr 02, 2026

Notice Regarding Exhibit Attachment

#7

Apr 02, 2026

Withdrawal of Document

#8

Apr 02, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#9

Apr 03, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: On February 11, 2026, this Court denied Petitioner's habeas petition in a related case, Harpreet v. LaRose, No. 3:26-cv-395, Dkt. 7 on the grounds that Petitioner was subject to mandatory detention until March 24, 2026. On March 30, the government filed a status report in that case attesting that they had obtained Singh's travel document and would remove him within the next week, i.e., by April 6, 2026. Harpreet, No. 3:26-cv-395, Dkt. 12. Given that the government expects to remove Petitioner by April 6, 2026, the Court ORDERS the government to, by 5 p.m. on April 7, 2026, file either (1) a response to the habeas petition or (2) a declaration confirming that Petitioner has been removed to India. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 04/03/2026. (rh) (Entered: 04/03/2026)

Apr 03, 2026

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

#10

Apr 07, 2026

Return to Petition for Writ of H/C

#11

Apr 08, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Petitioner Harpreet Singh, a noncitizen who came to the United States to seek asylum, seeks habeas relief from his prolonged detention following a final removal order. See Dkt. 1 ("Pet."). For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the habeas petition.1. On November 24, 2025, an Immigration Judge ("IJ") ordered Petitioner removed. See Pet. at 4. His removal order became final on December 24, 2025. See Harpreet v. LaRose, No. 26-cv-395, Dkt. 7 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2026). On April 3, 2026, the Ninth Circuit stayed Petitioner's removal pending that court's decision on his petition for review. See Dkt. 10 at 2, n.1. In the meantime, Petitioner has been detained at the Otay Mesa Detention Center for over 100 days following his final removal order.2. For the reasons stated in Pacheco v. LaRose, No. 3:25-CV-2421-JO-AHG, 2026 WL 242300, *2-*3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2026), the Court finds that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) does not bar Petitioner's collateral challenge to the constitutionality of his current detention. As courts have consistently found, a challenge to continued detention pending removal does not intrude on the government's discretion to decide "when" or "whether" to execute a removal order and falls outside § 1252(g)'s scope. See Phakeokoth v. Noem, No. 3:25-cv-02817-RBM-SBC, 2025 WL 3124341, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2025); Esmaeili v. Noem, No. 26-CV-0203-GPC-JLB, 2026 WL 240661 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2026).3. The Court further finds that Petitioner's continued detention violates his substantive due process rights under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001) (detention following a final removal order is presumptively reasonable for six months for the purpose of effecting a removal but becomes unlawful if the government fails to rebut a noncitizen's showing that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future). Although detention is mandatory during the initial 90-day removal period, the six-month presumption recognized in Zadvydas is rebuttable. See Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371, 384 ("Zadvydas did not hold that the statute authorizes detention until it approaches constitutional limits...."); Hoang Trinh v. Homan, 333 F.Supp.3d 984, 994 (C.D. Cal. 2018) (explaining that the "Supreme Court in Zadvydas outlined a 'guide' for approaching these detention challenges, 533 U.S. at 700-701, not a prohibition on claims challenging detention less than six months"). Because the Ninth Circuit has stayed Petitioner's removal, the Court finds that there is no significant likelihood that Petitioner will be removed in the foreseeable future. See Banda v. McAleenan, 385 F. Supp. 3d 1099, 1119 (W.D. Wash. 2019) (appeal of removal order with the BIA and review in the Ninth Circuit may take up to two years or longer). Petitioner has therefore rebutted the Zadvydas presumption that detention may be reasonable for up to six months following a final removal order. Accordingly, his detention is unlawful under Zadvydas, and he is entitled to immediate release.The Court's ruling and injunctive terms are set forth in a separate order at Dkt. 12. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 04/08/2026. (rh) (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (rxc). (Entered: 04/08/2026)

#12

Apr 08, 2026

Order

#13

Apr 08, 2026

Judgment - Clerk

Apr 08, 2026

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

#14

Apr 13, 2026

Notice (Other)

#15

May 07, 2026

Mail Returned

#16

May 07, 2026

Mail Returned

#17

May 07, 2026

Mail Returned