The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
13 SODHI SINGH, Case No.: 3:26-cv-03797-CAB-BJW
14 Petitioner,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
15 v. RECONSIDERATION
16 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, et al.,
17 Respondents. [Doc. No. 8]
18
19 On June 30, 2026, Petitioner Sodhi Singh, an immigration detainee proceeding pro
20 se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. [Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”).] This was
21 Petitioner’s third petition for a writ of habeas corpus since his detention on December 13,
22 2024. [See Singh v. Larose et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-00913-CAB-BJW (S.D. Cal. Feb. 12,
23 2026) (“Singh I”).] On August 10, 2026, the Court denied the Petition and closed this case,
24 instructing Petitioner to first exhaust his administrative remedies before seeking relief in
25 this Court. [Doc. No. 6 at 2.] Petitioner argues that because he complied with the Court’s
26 instruction in Singh I to pursue an appeal before the Board of Immigration Appeals
27 (“BIA”), the Court improperly dismissed the Petition in this case. [Doc. No. 8 at 1.]
28 Petitioner does not state that he has received a decision from the BIA yet.
1 Exhausting administrative remedies means that Petitioner must appeal to the BIA
2 || and receive a decision from the BIA. See Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th
3 2011) (“Once the BIA rendered its decision, [the petitioner] could have properly
4 || pursued habeas relief in the district court[.]” (emphasis added)). Although Petitioner has
5 || filed an appeal with the BIA, he has not yet received a decision from the BIA and therefore
6 || exhausted administrative remedies.
7 The Court therefore DENIES Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. [Doc. No. 8.]
8 No further filings shall be accepted in this closed case.
9 Itis SO ORDERED.
10 ||Dated: August 25, 2026 (GR
11
Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo
12 United States District Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28