Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Harbir Singh, an immigration detainee, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Eastern District of California challenging his detention. The court had previously addressed the legal issues raised in the petition in several related decisions, including Garcia Mariagua v. Chestnut, Ortega v. Noem, Lopez v. Lyons, M.B. v. Noem, and Oli v. Andrews, and the present order grants relief for the reasons stated in those prior decisions.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243, the court directed Respondents to file a return showing cause why the court should not grant the writ and order Singh's release based on the violation of his due process rights (ECF No. 4). In light of the Ninth Circuit's decision in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 2026 WL 2196424 (9th Cir. July 30, 2026), Respondents conceded that binding precedent establishes a statutory right to a bond hearing (ECF No. 6).
The court further found that Respondents' prior release of Petitioner creates a liberty interest that requires pre-deprivation notice and an opportunity to be heard before the government may impose further restrictions on his liberty.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) for the reasons stated in its prior orders. It held that Respondents' prior release of Petitioner created a liberty interest requiring pre-deprivation notice and opportunity to be heard, and it ordered Respondents to immediately release Petitioner Harbir Singh from their custody.
The court ordered that Respondents shall not impose any additional restrictions on Petitioner unless that is determined to be necessary at a future pre-deprivation/custody hearing. Respondents are permanently enjoined and restrained from re-arresting or re-detaining Petitioner absent compliance with constitutional protections, which include, at a minimum, pre-deprivation notice describing the change of circumstances necessitating Petitioner's arrest and detention, and a timely hearing.
At any such hearing, the Government shall bear the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that Petitioner poses a danger to the community or a risk of flight, and Petitioner shall be allowed to have their counsel present. The order expressly does not address the circumstances in which Respondents may detain Petitioner in the event he becomes subject to an executable final order of removal. The Clerk of the Court was directed to serve Golden State Annex with a copy of the order, to close the case, and to enter judgment for Petitioner; the order resolves all pending motions.
Key Takeaways
- The court granted habeas relief to immigration detainee Harbir Singh and ordered Respondents to immediately release him from custody.
- Respondents conceded that binding Ninth Circuit precedent, Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, establishes a statutory right to a bond hearing for immigration detainees.
- The court permanently enjoined and restrained Respondents from re-arresting or re-detaining Petitioner without pre-deprivation notice describing the changed circumstances and a timely hearing at which the Government must prove danger to the community or risk of flight by clear and convincing evidence.
- Respondents may not impose any additional restrictions on Petitioner unless determined necessary at a future pre-deprivation/custody hearing, at which Petitioner is entitled to have counsel present.
- The order expressly reserved the question of detention authority if Petitioner becomes subject to an executable final order of removal, and it closed the case with judgment entered for Petitioner, resolving all pending motions.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces due process protections for immigration detainees who have been previously released, holding that the government's own prior release creates a liberty interest that requires pre-deprivation notice and an opportunity to be heard before any re-detention or additional restriction. The ruling applies Ninth Circuit precedent establishing statutory bond hearing rights and imposes a clear and convincing evidence burden on the Government to justify re-arrest or re-detention.
The order also clarifies the procedural safeguards required at any future custody hearing, including the right to counsel and the Government's burden to demonstrate danger to the community or risk of flight. By expressly reserving the question of detention authority upon an executable final order of removal, the court limited the scope of its injunction to the present circumstances, and by closing the case with judgment for Petitioner it made the release order a final, appealable disposition.