Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 SAWAN KUMAR, No. 1:26-cv-2620 DAD AC

12 Petitioner,

13 v. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

14 WARDEN GOLDEN STATE ANNEX

FACILITY, et al.,

15

Respondents.

16

17

Petitioner, an immigrant detainee proceeding through counsel, filed a petition for a writ of

18

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 which was accompanied by a motion for a temporary

19

restraining order. ECF Nos. 1, 2. The motion for a temporary restraining order was converted to

20

a motion for a preliminary injunction and respondents were directed to respond to the motion.

21

ECF No. 6. Respondents filed a combination motion to dismiss the petition and opposition to the

22

motion for a preliminary injunction. ECF No. 7. This case was then related to petitioner’s earlier

23

filed pro se petition, Kumar v. Warden Golden State Annex (Kumar I), No. 1:26-cv-0868 DAD

24

AC (E.D. Cal.). ECF No. 8. After issuing the related case order, the newly assigned district

25

judge denied the motion for a preliminary injunction on the ground “that petitioner is not likely to

26

succeed on the merits of his claims because those claims rest on the incorrect premise that

27

petitioner has not been afforded an individualized determination of whether he is a danger or a

28

1 flight risk.” ECF No. 9. The court further noted that the bond hearing petitioner received was

2 conducted in compliance with the court’s order in Kumar I. Id. The matter was then referred to

3 the undersigned. Id.

4 On May 11, 2026, the undersigned found that petitioner “seeks release on the ground that

5 he has not been provided a constitutionally adequate bond hearing. However, the record reflects

6 that petitioner was given a bond hearing as ordered in Case No. 1:26-cv-0868 DAD AC, and that

7 bond was denied on the grounds that petitioner is both a danger and a flight risk.” ECF No. 10

8 (citing ECF No. 7 at 24-30). Petitioner was then ordered to “show cause why the petition should

9 not be denied without prejudice to filing an amended petition or motion to enforce in Case No.

10 1:26-cv-0868 DAD AC.” Petitioner has failed to respond to the order and the time for doing so

11 has passed.

12 To the extent if any that petitioner is attempting to claim that he has not been provided a

13 bond hearing, respondents have produced evidence showing that petitioner was provided a bond

14 hearing on February 12, 2026. ECF No. 7 at 24, 27. To the extent petitioner is attempting to

15 claim that the bond hearing he received did not comply with the requirements of the temporary

16 restraining order issued in Kumar I, a motion to enforce filed in that action is the proper vehicle

17 for relief. See Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1161 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he district court

18 ha[s] authority to review compliance with its earlier order conditionally granting habeas relief.”).

19 If the scope of petitioner’s challenge to the bond hearing exceeds that scope of the order in Kumar

20 I, then a separate habeas action may be appropriate. However, respondents submitted

21 documentation showing that petitioner has not exhausted his administrative remedies because his

22 appeal of the decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) is still pending. See ECF No.

23 7 at 33-34 (receipt for appeal of bond determination to BIA, dated March 19, 2026).

24 “When a petitioner does not exhaust administrative remedies, a district court ordinarily

25 should either dismiss the petition without prejudice or stay the proceedings until the petitioner has

26 exhausted remedies, unless exhaustion is excused.” Leonardo, 646 F.3d at 1160. Exhaustion can

27 be excused where “pursuit of administrative remedies would be a futile gesture, irreparable injury

28 will result, or the administrative proceedings would be void.” Laing v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 994,

1 1000 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting SEC v. G.C. George Sec., Inc., 637 F.2d 685, 688 (9th Cir. 1981)).

2 || In this case, petitioner has not made any claim that exhaustion should be excused. Therefore,

3 || even if petitioner’s challenges to his bond hearing are more appropriately brought as a separate

4 || action than as a motion to enforce, dismissal of the claim without prejudice is appropriate.

5 For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned finds that the matters presented in this

6 || action are more appropriately filed either as a motion to enforce in Kumar J or as a separate action

7 || after petitioner has exhausted his administrative remedies.

8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

9 1. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed without prejudice;

10 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 7) be DENIED as moot;

11 3. The Clerk of the Court be directed to close this case.

12 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

13 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within seven days after

14 | being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with

15 || the court and serve a copy on all parties. The parties are advised that failure to file objections

16 || within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v.

17 | Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

18 || DATED: May 28, 2026 ~

19 Chthion— Chore

ALLISON CLAIRE

20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28