Gurpreet Singh v. Daniel A. Brightman, Field Office of Enforcement and Removal...

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GURPREET SINGH, Case No.: 26-cv-0233-BJC-VET 12 Petitioner, ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE v. DANIEL A. BRIGHTMAN, Field Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations, et al., Respondents.

19 On January 15, 2026, Petitioner Gurpreet Singh filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and a motion for a temporary restraining order. ECF Nos. 1, 2. He alleges he entered the United States on December 6, 2022, was placed in immigration proceedings and subsequently paroled into the United States. Pet. ¶ 8. He further alleges, despite his compliance and attendance at all court hearings for his removal proceedings, he was re- detained, without any notice, by the Department of Homeland Security at his Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) check-in on July 22, 2025. Id. ¶¶ 10, 11. Petitioner is currently detained at the Imperial Regional Adult Detention Facility. Id. ¶ 12. He asserts his detention is unlawful and violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), the guarantee of equal protection, and the Suspension Clause of the constitution. Id. ¶¶ 37-81. Petitioner requests the Court enjoin Respondents from transferring him during the pendency of this action, declare his continued detention violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, the APA, and the Due Process Clause, and order his immediate release. Id. at 20.1 5 The Court finds it appropriate to set a briefing schedule on the petition and motion for a temporary restraining order. Additionally, the Court finds a limited stay is necessary to preserve the status quo to allow the Court to hold a hearing, as deemed necessary, and provide a reasoned decision on the pending motion and petition. See E-C-R- v. Noem, No. 3:25-CV-1230-SI, 2025 WL 2300543, at *1 (D. Or. July 16, 2025) (finding an order under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, necessary to prevent the arrest, detention or deportation of the plaintiff while the parties litigate the merits of the plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief); Du v. United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 3:25-CV-644 (OAW), 2025 WL 1317944, at *2 (D. Conn. Apr. 24, 2025) (enjoining the defendants, under the All Writs Act, from removing the plaintiffs from the District of Connecticut to preserve the court’s jurisdiction).

16 /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// 1 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 2 1. Respondents shall file a response to the Petition and Application for a 3 Temporary Restraining Order no later than close of business on January 4 23, 2026.

5 2. Petitioner may file a reply no later than close of business on January 30, 6 2026.

7 3. Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons 8 acting in active concert or participation with them are hereby ENJOINED 9 from removing Petitioner from the United States or this District pending 10 further order of the Court, to maintain the status quo to allow the Court to 11 provide a reasoned decision to the request at hand.

12 IT IS SO ORDERED.

13 ||Dated: January 16, 2026 16 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks 17 United States District Judge