Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. 5:26-cv-00539-SVW-DMK Date April 27, 2026

Title Chanpreet Singh v. Ernesto Santacruz Jr et al

Present: The Diana M. Kwok, United States Magistrate Judge

Honorable

Valerie Velasco n/a

Deputy Clerk Court Smart / Recorder

Attorney(s) Present for Petitioner(s): Attorney(s) Present for Respondent(s):

None present None present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On February 6, 2026, Petitioner Chanpreet Singh, an immigration detainee

proceeding through counsel, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and an Ex Parte

Application for Temporary Restraining Order. ECF 1-2. The Petition and Ex Parte

Application primarily seek an order requiring Petitioner’s immediate release under the

same terms of his original detention. Jd. On March 2, 2026, the Court granted the Ex

Parte Application and ordered Respondents to provide Petitioner an individualized bond

redetermination hearing before an immigration judge within 7 days or otherwise release

Petitioner from custody. ECF 11.

On March 18, 2026, Petitioner’s bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) took place.

ECF 17. The immigration judge (IJ) denied bond on the basis that Petitioner was a flight

risk. Jd. On April 6, 2026, Petitioner filed a Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law

(“Motion”), primarily attacking the sufficiency and determination of the bond hearing.

ECF 18.

Based on what is before the Court, however, it appears that Petitioner has not

appealed his bond determination to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). A detainee

can appeal an immigration judge’s bond hearing determination to the BIA if they are not

satisfied with the outcome. See Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011).

Then, if the detainee disagrees with the BIA’s decision, he or she may challenge the

continued detention by filing a habeas petition. Jd. “When a petitioner does not exhaust

administrative remedies, a district court ordinarily should either dismiss the petition

without prejudice or stay the proceedings until the petitioner has exhausted remedies,

unless exhaustion is excused.” Id.

Accordingly, the Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action

should not be dismissed without prejudice on account of Petitioner’s failure to exhaust his

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. 5:26-cv-00539-SVW-DMK Date April 27, 2026

Title Chanpreet Singh v. Ernesto Santacruz Jr et al

administrative remedies prior to the filing of the Motion by no later than May 4, 2026.

Respondents must substantively respond no later than May 11, 2026. Petitioner may file a

reply no later than May 18, 2026.

Separately, in the event that Petitioner is released from custody during the

pendency of this Petition, the parties shall notify the Court by filing a Motion to Dismiss

the Petition or other proper pleading.

IT IS SO ORDERED.