Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01080/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01080-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 463
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GURMEET SINGH,

Petitioner,

v.

FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, SAN 

FRANCISCO FIELD OFFICE, UNITED 

STATES IMMIGRATION AND 

CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No. 24-cv-03472-RMI 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS; SHOW CAUSE 

ORDER

Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 3

Petitioner, a federal detainee, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner challenges his prolonged detention by the United States Immigration 

and Custom Enforcement (ICE) at the Mesa Verde Processing Center in Bakersfield, California. 

He also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (dkt. 2).

DISCUSSION

Standard of Review 

This court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person “in 

custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 

2241(c)(3). It shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why 

the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person 

detained is not entitled thereto.” Id. § 2243. 

Legal Claims

Petitioner has been in ICE custody for nearly three years, and he was eligible for removal 

on October 4, 2023. (dkt. 1 at 4). Since then, no action has been taken while he remains in 

custody. (id.) He seeks release due to the delay in final removal. (id. at 4-5). 

Case 1:24-cv-01080-HBK Document 6 Filed 06/25/24 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

District courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to review habeas petitions by noncitizens challenging the lawfulness of their detention. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 699 

(2001). Although 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) authorizes the government to continue to detain an alien 

after entry of a final removal order, it does not permit indefinite detention of an alien because his

native country will not accept him. See id. at 687-88, 697- 98. Once removal is no longer 

reasonably foreseeable, continued detention is no longer authorized by statute. Id. at 699-700.

Liberally construed, the petition states a cognizable claim for habeas relief under § 2241 

based on petitioner’s prolonged detention by ICE. See Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th 

Cir. 2001) (federal courts must construe pro se petitions for writs of habeas corpus liberally).

Petitioner has also requested the appointment of counsel. The Sixth Amendment right to 

counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th 

Cir. 1986). But 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes a district court to appoint counsel to 

represent a habeas petitioner whenever “the court determines that the interests of justice so 

require.” Petitioner has presented his claim adequately and the issues are not complex. The Court 

finds that the interests of justice do not warrant the appointment of counsel at this time. 

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt. 2) is GRANTED. The motion to 

appoint counsel (dkt. 3) is DENIED without prejudice. 

The Clerk shall serve electronically (1) a copy of this order and (2) a notice of assignment 

of prisoner case to a United States magistrate judge and accompanying magistrate judge 

jurisdiction consent or declination to consent form (requesting that respondent consent or decline 

to consent within 28 days of receipt of service) upon the Respondent and the Respondent’s 

attorney, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California, at the following email 

addresses: (1) usacan.ecf@usdoj.gov; (2) michelle.lo@usdoj.gov; and (3) kathy.terry@usdoj.gov. 

The petition and exhibits thereto are available via the Electronic Case Filing System for the 

Northern District of California. The Clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order on Petitioner. 

Respondent shall file with the court and serve on Petitioner, within fifty-six (56) days of 

the issuance of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing 

Case 1:24-cv-01080-HBK Document 6 Filed 06/25/24 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted.

Respondent shall file, with the Answer, and serve on Petitioner, a copy of all portions of the state 

trial record that have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of the 

issues presented by the Petition. 

If Petitioner wishes to respond to the Answer, he shall do so by filing a Traverse with the 

court and serving it on Respondent within twenty-eight (28) days of his receipt of the Answer.

Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an Answer, as 

set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

If Respondent files such a motion, it is due fifty-six (56) days from the date that this order is 

entered. If a motion is filed, Petitioner shall file with the court, and serve on Respondent, an 

opposition or statement of non-opposition within twenty-eight (28) days of receipt of the motion, 

and Respondent shall file with the court, and serve on Petitioner, a reply within fourteen (14) days 

of receipt of any opposition.

Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the court must be served on 

Respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to Respondent’s counsel. Petitioner must keep 

the court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court’s orders in a timely 

fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant 

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 

1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 25, 2024

ROBERT M. ILLMAN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:24-cv-01080-HBK Document 6 Filed 06/25/24 Page 3 of 3