Eastern District of California • 1:25-cv-02006

(HC) Singh v. Albarran

Active

Case Information

Filed: December 26, 2025
Assigned to: Jennifer L. Thurston
Referred to: Erica Grosjean
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Active
Last Activity: December 30, 2025
Parties: View All Parties →

Docket Entries

#1
Dec 26, 2025
PETITION for WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS against All Respondents by Jatinder Singh. (Filing fee $ 5, receipt number ACAEDC-12703553) (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Gahra, Manpreet) (Entered: 12/26/2025)
Main Document: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
#2
Dec 26, 2025
MOTION for TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Jatinder Singh. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Memorandum, # 3 Exhibit)(Gahra, Manpreet) (Entered: 12/26/2025)
Main Document: Temporary Restraining Order
#3
Dec 26, 2025
PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 1/29/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form) (Deputy Clerk JJD) (Entered: 12/26/2025)
Main Document: Prisoner New Case Documents for Magistrate Judge as Presider
#5
Dec 27, 2025
CONSENT/DECLINE of U.S. Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b)(1), this document is restricted to attorneys and court staff only. Judges do not have access to view this document and will be informed of a party's response only if all parties have consented to the referral. (Gahra, Manpreet) (Entered: 12/27/2025)
Main Document: CONSENT/DECLINE
#6
Dec 29, 2025
CLERK'S NOTICE to Attorney Manpreet S. Gahra re Civil Cover Sheet: Your document is not formatted properly, please flatten your PDF and re-file a properly formatted PDF. For information on how to flatten a pdf, please refer to our website under CM/ECF E-Filing > PDF Information > Page 7. If you need assistance, please contact the CM/ECF help desk at 866-884-5444. (Deputy Clerk AML) (Entered: 12/29/2025)
#7
Dec 29, 2025
CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Jatinder Singh. (Gahra, Manpreet) (Entered: 12/29/2025)
Main Document: CIVIL
#8
Dec 29, 2025
MINUTE ORDER (Text Entry Only) The Court has reviewed the papers filed thus far in this matter, including the Petition (Doc. 1 ) and motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. 2 ). The record indicates that Petitioner entered the United States in December 2021 (Doc. 2-3 at 2), was detained later that month in Natchez, Mississippi (id.), and was released on parole in February 2022, after receiving a positive credible fear determination from an asylum officer. (Id. at 1-6.) He was then re-detained in Fresno, California on August 27, 2025, approximately four months ago. (Doc. 2-2 at 4.) On an undisclosed date, an immigration court denied his request for a custody re-determination, finding it lacked jurisdiction to consider granting him bond. (Id.)Moreover, though petitioner cites (see Doc. 1 at 2 n.1) to Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-BFM, 2025 WL 3288403 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2025), reconsideration granted in part, 2025 WL 3713982 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025), and amended and superseded on reconsideration 2025 WL 3713987 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025), with judgment entered 2025 WL 3678485 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025), the class certified in that case includes: All noncitizens in the United States without lawful status who (1) have entered or will enter the United States without inspection; (2) were not or will not be apprehended upon arrival; and (3) are not or will not be subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), § 1225(b)(1), or § 1231 at the time the Department of Homeland Security makes an initial custody determination. (Emphasis added.) It is not yet clear to the Court whether Petitioner would satisfy the second element of class inclusion, given his parole/supervision status prior to re-detention.Even assuming Petitioner is a member of the Bautista class, the Court is not convinced that the entry of judgment in Bautista entitles every class member to emergency habeas relief on shortened time, given that the reasoning set forth in Bautista is not new. Courts throughout the United States, including this one, have reached similar conclusions over the course of the past many months. It is therefore unclear why this matter could not have been raised at an earlier time by way of a regularly scheduled motion. See Local Rule 231(b). Thus, the request for a TRO is DENIED. The matter is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for scheduling signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on December 29, 2025. (Deputy Clerk IM) (Entered: 12/29/2025)
Dec 29, 2025
Order on Motion for TRO
#9
Dec 30, 2025
06 - HC/Order Requiring Respondent to File a Response
Main Document: 06 - HC/Order Requiring Respondent to File a Response
#10
Dec 30, 2025
09 - Order Re Consent or Request for Reassignment
Main Document: 09 - Order Re Consent or Request for Reassignment