Navjot Singh v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility, et al.

[4] 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 NAVJOT SINGH, ) Case No.: 1:25-cv-01690-JLT-SKO (HC) ) 12 Petitioner, ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO ) SUMMARILY DISMISS PETITION 13 v. ) 14 ) WARDEN OF THE GOLDEN STATE ) 15 ANNEX DETENTION FACILITY, et al., ) ) 16 Respondents. ) ) 17 ) [18] 19 Petitioner is an immigration detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 20 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 . 21 Petitioner filed the instant petition on December 1, 2025. (Doc. 1.) Petitioner challenges his 22 continued detention by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). He claims his 23 prolonged detention without a bond hearing violates his procedural due process rights under the Fifth 24 Amendment. He claims he should be immediately released, or alternatively, provided a bond hearing 25 before an immigration judge (“IJ”) at which the Government must justify his continued detention by 26 clear and convincing evidence. 27 For the reasons discussed below, the Court will recommend the petition be dismissed without 28 prejudice. 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 Petitioner is an immigration detainee who was detained and placed in custody by the 3 Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) on September 12, 2025. (Doc. 1 at 5.) He states he is 4 currently in removal proceedings. (Doc. 1 at 4.) 5 II. DISCUSSION 6 A. Summary Dismissal 7 Habeas corpus petitions are subject to summary dismissal pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules 8 Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. The provisions of Rule 4, which 9 are applicable to § 2241 petitions under Rule 1(b), provide in pertinent part: “If it plainly appears from 10 the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the 11 judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” The Advisory Committee 12 Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the Court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus, either on its 13 own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to dismiss, or after an answer to the 14 petition has been filed. 15 B. Jurisdiction 16 A district court may grant a writ of habeas corpus when the petitioner “is in custody in 17 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (c)(3). 18 “[D]istrict courts retain jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to consider habeas challenges to 19 immigration detention that are sufficiently independent of the merits of [a] removal order.” Lopez20 Marroquin v. Barr, 955 F.3d 759, 759 (9th Cir. 2020) (citing Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 , 1211–12 21 (9th Cir. 2011)). Pertinent here, the Supreme Court specifically directed that federal courts have 22 jurisdiction to review a constitutional challenge to a non-citizen’s detention. See Demore v. Kim, 538 23 U.S. 510 , 517 (2003). 24 C. Petitioner’s Detention is not Unreasonably Prolonged 25 The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause provides that “[n]o person shall be ... deprived of 26 life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” “It is well established that the Fifth Amendment 27 entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings,” Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 , 306 28 (1993), and “[a] statute permitting indefinite detention of an alien would raise a serious constitutional 1 problem,” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001). The Supreme Court nevertheless has 2 recognized that “[d]etention during deportation proceedings is a constitutionally permissible part of 3 [the deportation] process.” Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 531 (2003); see also Carlson v. Landon, 342 4 U.S. 524 , 538 (1952) (“[d]etention is necessarily a part of this deportation procedure”). 5 Petitioner states he has been in continuous detention since approximately September 12, 2025. 6 He complains the approximately 2-month period is prolonged and indefinite, and he should be given a 7 bond hearing, or in the alternative, released from custody. Petitioner’s short 2-month period of 8 detention to date does not qualify as unreasonably prolonged. 9 In Zadvydas v. Davis, the Supreme Court held that a detention period less than six months is 10 presumptively reasonable as to aliens detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226 (a)(6). 533 U.S. 678 (2001). 11 Beyond that six-month period, the alien must “provide[] good reason to believe that there is no 12 significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.” Id. at 701 . As to aliens 13 detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225 (b)(1) and (b)(2), the Supreme Court has held that no such 614 month time limit is proscribed, whether implicit or explicit. Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 , 30015 01 (2018). In Demore v. Kim, the Supreme Court noted that shorter detention periods during removal 16 proceedings lasting roughly between a month and a half to five months are a “constitutionally 17 permissible part of [the removal] process.” 538 U.S. 510, 530 (2003). 18 Several circuit and district courts have found that unreasonably long detention periods with no 19 allowance for a bond hearing may violate the due process clause. See, e.g., Rodriguez v. Marin 20 (“Rodriguez IV”), 909 F.3d 252, 256 (9th Cir. 2018) (the Ninth Circuit asserted “grave doubts that any 21 statute that allows for arbitrary prolonged detention without any process is constitutional....”); Diop v. 22 ICE/Homeland Sec., 656 F.3d 221, 235 (3d Cir. 2011) (detention of an alien for a period of nearly 23 three years without further inquiry into whether it was necessary to ensure his appearance at the 24 removal proceedings or to prevent a risk of danger to the community, was unreasonable, and, 25 therefore, a violation of the Due Process Clause”); German Santos v. Warden Pike, 965 F.3d 203 (3d 26 Cir. 2020) (reversing and remanding to district court to order bond hearing while detained under § 27 1226(c)); Diep v. Wofford, 1:24-cv-01238-SKO, 2025 WL 604744 (E.D. Cal Feb. 25, 2025) (ordering 28 bond hearing for noncitizen detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 (c) for 13 months); A.E. v. Andrews, 1:251 cv-00107-KES-SKO, 2025 WL 1424382 (E.D. Cal. May 16, 2025) (ordering bond hearing for 2 noncitizen detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 (b) for 20 months). However, these cases involved detention 3 periods substantially longer than 6 months. Here, Petitioner’s short detention period of 2 months is 4 well within the 6-month presumptively reasonable period contemplated in Zadvydas and does not 5 implicate those constitutional concerns. See, e.g., De Oliveira Viegas v. Green, 370 F. Supp. 3d 443 , 6 448–49 (D.N.J. 2019) (“As a general matter, courts in this District have found detention for a year, or 7 just over a year, insufficient to support an as-applied challenge to a § 1226(c) detention post8 Jennings.”); Muse v. Sessions, 2018 WL 4466052 , at *4 (D. Minn. Sept. 18, 2018) (collecting cases 9 re: the same) (“[a]s detention continues past a year, courts become extremely wary of permitting 10 continued custody absent a bond hearing”). 11 The Court finds that Petitioner’s relatively short detention period does not qualify as 12 unreasonably prolonged as to violate his Fifth Amendment due process rights. Petitioner’s continued 13 detention, however, may violate due process at some point in the future. At this juncture, the Court 14 finds that Petitioner fails to demonstrate that in his case his 2-month detention without a bond hearing 15 constitutes a violation of due process. As previously noted, the Supreme Court has held that 16 “[d]etention during deportation proceedings is a constitutionally permissible part of [the deportation] 17 process.” Demore, 538 U.S. at 531 . 18 RECOMMENDATION 19 For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that the petition be DISMISSED 20 without prejudice. 21 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 22 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 23 Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within twenty24 one (21) days after being served with a copy of this Findings and Recommendation, a party may file 25 written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Id. The document should be 26 captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation” and shall not exceed 27 fifteen (15) pages, except by leave of court with good cause shown. The Court will not consider 28 exhibits attached to the Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party 1 should reference the exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, 2 or otherwise reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the fifteen (15) page 3 limitation may be disregarded by the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and 4 Recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file 5 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 6 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014). This recommendation is not an order that is 7 immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 8 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court's 9 judgment. [10] 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: December 2, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE