Western District of Kentucky • 5:26-cv-00193

#1

Jul 06, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Simranjit Singh. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit) (DJT) (Entered: 07/06/2026)

#2

Jul 06, 2026

Case Assignment (Random Selection): Case Assigned to Judge Benjamin Beaton. (DJT) (Entered: 07/06/2026)

#3

Jul 06, 2026

MOTION for for Simranjit Kaur to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Petitioner Simranjit Singh (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (DJT) (Entered: 07/06/2026)

#4

Jul 06, 2026

MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Petitioner Simranjit Singh (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (DJT) (Entered: 07/06/2026)

#5

Jul 06, 2026

NOTICE of Deficiency re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 4 Motion for TRO.Reason for Deficiency: Filing Fee not Paid nor Pro Hac Filing Fee, No Proposed Order Filed for Motion for TRO. Failure to comply will be brought to the attention of the Court. Response due by 7/13/2026. (DJT) (Entered: 07/06/2026)

#6

Jul 07, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Jo E. Lawless on behalf of Todd Blanche, LaDeon Francis, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin (Lawless, Jo) (Entered: 07/07/2026)

#7

Jul 07, 2026

TEXT ORDER: In response to the petition for a writ of habeas corpus (DN 1 ), the Court directs the Respondents to show cause, no later than 7/10/26, why the writ should not be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243. The Respondents should also respond to the Petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order (DN 4 ). Unless the parties file notice that they seek a hearing, the Court will presume that the petition presents no material factual disputes and decide it on the papers. The Clerk of Court shall forward by certified mail, return receipt requested, one copy of the petition and this order on each Respondent who has not been designated by the United States Attorney's Office, as agreed to by the Attorney's Office and the Clerk in the 1/20/2026 Memorandum of Understanding, to receive electronic notice and service. cc: counsel, Warden - Christian County Jail (via certified mail) w/ DN 1 Petition (JM) (Entered: 07/07/2026)

#8

Jul 07, 2026

Notice (Other)

#9

Jul 07, 2026

TEXT ORDER: Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), the Court refers this matter to Magistrate Judge King for hearing and determining all pretrial matters, including non-dispositive motions. Judge King may conduct a settlement conference in this matter at any time. This Notice of Electronic Filing is the Official ORDER for this entry. No document is attached.cc: counsel (JM) (Entered: 07/07/2026)

Jul 07, 2026

Order - TEXT ONLY

Jul 07, 2026

Order

#10

Jul 09, 2026

Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice

#11

Jul 10, 2026

Response to Order to Show Cause

#12

Jul 17, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#13

Jul 17, 2026

Response to Habeas Petition

#14

Jul 21, 2026

Notice (Other)

#15

Aug 24, 2026

TEXT ORDER: In response to the Court's show-cause order, the Government agrees that Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft, 175 F.4th 713 (6th Cir. 2026), "dictates the detention authority under which Petitioner is held," that is, 8 U.S.C. sec. 1226(a) rather than sec. 1225(b)(2)(A) applies here. Response (DN 11 ) at 3-4. But that decision, the Government contends, does not afford the Petitioner "any form of relief in habeas because he was never detained under the § 1225 legal theory." Id. at 4. And his lack of a custody-redetermination doesn't violate the Due Process Clause, according to the Government, because the Petitioner hasnt requested such a hearing. Id. at 1-2. Instead, it continues, the Petitioner must exhaust administrative remedies by requesting a bond hearing. Id. at 6. The Government cites two regulations, 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.19(b) & (e), that purportedly support its position. But both address the manner of requesting a hearing, not any express requirement to do so. And exhaustion of administrative remedies, absent a specific command by Congress, is a "prudential, court-created doctrine." See, e.g., Perkovic v. I.N.S., 33 F.3d 615, 619 (6th Cir. 1994). That said, the Court agrees that, in the ordinary course, "[h]abeas should not be a substitute for the prescribed process for seeking release from custody," Response at 8, at least so long as the Government has pointed to a facially valid source of detention authority (as it has here, see 8 U.S.C. sec. 1226). So the Court won't order the Petitioner's immediate releaseso long as the Government (like this Court) construes the habeas petition (DN 1 at 22) and motion for a TRO (DN 4 ) as evidence that the Petitioner quite plainly seeks a custody-redetermination hearing. Given the Government's concession that Lopez-Campos "dictates" its detention authority and its acknowledgement that Immigration Judges are no longer denying bond on jurisdictional grounds, id. at 7, the Court declines to dismiss the petition on exhaustion grounds and instead orders the Government to construe the Petitioner's representations here as a request for a custody-redetermination hearing. So the Court directs the Government to provide a bond hearing within 5 days or promptly update this Court on its basis for not doing so, along with the outcome of any hearing, the status of the Petitioner, and any new or additional facts relevant to these proceedings. Consistent with this order, the Court also denies without prejudice the Petitioner's request for emergency injunctive relief (DN 4 ) to the extent that he suggests his immediate release, and not a bond hearing, is the exclusive remedy to mitigate irreparable harm. Compare Petition at 22 ("order Respondents to provide Petitioner a prompt, individualized custody determination"), with TRO Motion at 21 ("immediately releas[e] him from Respondents' custody"). This Notice of Electronic Filing is the Official ORDER for this entry. No document is attached. cc: Counsel (JM) (Entered: 08/24/2026)

Aug 24, 2026

Order on Motion for TRO

#16

Sep 01, 2026

Hearing

#17

Sep 01, 2026

Status Report

#18

Sep 02, 2026

Deficiency

#19

Sep 09, 2026

Proposed Order