Pardeep Kumar v. Warden River Correctional Center, ET AL.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION PARDEEP KUMAR CIVIL ACTION NO. 26-1296 SEC P VERSUS JUDGE EDWARDS WARDEN RIVER CORRECTIONAL MAGISTRATE JUDGE WHITEHURST CENTER, ET AL.

ORDER Before the Court is an Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) and Preliminary Injunction (R. Doc. 2), filed by Pardeep Kumar (“Petitioner”). Having carefully considered Petitioner’s submissions and the applicable law, Petitioner’s Motion is DENIED.

The very basis of a habeas action is to challenge the statutory or constitutional basis for detention. See Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103, 117 (2020) (“[T]he essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that custody, and … the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal custody.”) (quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973)).

Seeking injunctive relief that mirrors the relief requested in the habeas petition is nothing more than a motion to decide my habeas petition now. See Garcia-Aleman v. Thompson, No. 5:25-CV-00886, ECF No. 20 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2025)). The Court will not allow Petitioner to commit an end-run around the habeas process. Because the preliminary relief sought—a bond hearing or his immediate release—mirrors the ultimate relief sought in the habeas Petition, and because the arguments for both are the same, the Motion is DENIED. This matter is hereby referred to the Magistrate for the issuance of a briefing schedule and further disposition.

THUS DONE AND SIGNED this 28rd day of April, 2026.

RRY EDWARDS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE