Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Tajinder Singh, an immigration detainee, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as petitioner against Tonya Andrews and other respondents in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, No. 1:26-cv-08135-DJC-CSK. The court had already addressed the legal issues raised in his petition in several earlier decisions, including Garcia Mariagua v. Chestnut, Ortega v. Noem, Lopez v. Lyons, M.B. v. Noem, and Oli v. Andrews. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2243, the court directed the 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 recent decision in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 2026 WL 2196424 (9th Cir. July 30, 2026), the respondents conceded that binding precedent establishes a statutory right to a bond hearing (ECF No. 6 at 1). The present order therefore did not rest solely on that concession or issue a fresh, comprehensive analysis of the statutory question. Instead, it expressly incorporated the reasons stated in the court's prior decisions while adding a distinct due-process holding about the consequences of Singh's earlier release from custody.
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 and ordered the respondents to immediately release Singh from their custody. The court further held that the respondents' prior release of Singh created a liberty interest that requires pre-deprivation notice and an opportunity to be heard before any renewed detention. The order thus addressed not only his present custody but also the process the government must provide before it may arrest or detain him again.
The respondents were barred from imposing any additional restrictions on Singh unless a future pre-deprivation or custody hearing determined them to be necessary. They were permanently enjoined and restrained from re-arresting or re-detaining Singh absent compliance with constitutional protections, which include, at a minimum, pre-deprivation notice describing the change of circumstances necessitating his arrest and detention, and a timely hearing. At any such hearing, the government bears the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that Singh poses a danger to the community or a risk of flight, and Singh may have his counsel present.
The order expressly does not address the circumstances in which the respondents may detain Singh if he becomes subject to an executable final order of removal. The clerk of court was directed to serve Golden State Annex with a copy of the order, to close the case, and to enter judgment for Singh; the order resolves all pending motions.
Key Takeaways
- Singh's habeas petition was granted, and the respondents were ordered to immediately release him from custody.
- The court held that Singh's prior release created a liberty interest protected by pre-deprivation notice and an opportunity to be heard before any renewed detention.
- The respondents are permanently enjoined from re-arresting or re-detaining Singh without advance notice of the changed circumstances and a timely hearing.
- At any future qualifying hearing, the government must prove danger to the community or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence, and Singh may have counsel present.
- The order leaves open when detention would be permissible if Singh becomes subject to an executable final order of removal, and it directs the clerk to close the case and enter judgment for Singh.
Why It Matters
The order combines immediate habeas relief with forward-looking limits on renewed detention. Its liberty-interest holding matters because the government cannot treat Singh's earlier release as irrelevant when seeking to impose custody again: any changed circumstances must be described in advance, followed by a timely hearing with specified procedural protections and a heightened evidentiary burden on the government.
The decision also carefully defines the scope of its own ruling. It resolves the pending case, directs judgment for Singh, and disposes of all pending motions, but it does not purport to decide every possible basis for future immigration detention. The express reservation concerning an executable final order of removal leaves that separate circumstance unresolved for another day.