Singh v. Wolf
- Vyskocil
- 1:20-cv-04456
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Singh v. Wolf, Judge Vyskocil ordered Singh to serve his filings and explain the detention location and jurisdiction.
Sukhdev Singh was required to serve the respondents and provide a statement about his detention location and the basis for jurisdiction. The order imposed no merits ruling on Singh’s claims or on the temporary restraining order.
What happened
In Singh v. Wolf, Sukhdev Singh filed a petition asking for habeas relief and a temporary restraining order without first notifying the respondents.
The court found that Singh had not justified handling the request without notice. It ordered him to serve the petition, motion, and order on the respondents by June 17, 2020, and to provide information about where he was detained and why this district had jurisdiction.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil did not decide the underlying petition or temporary-restraining-order request in this order. She issued service and briefing requirements instead.
The detailed version
- Singh v. Wolf · No. 1:20-cv-04456
- Vyskocil
- June 15, 2020
Background
Sukhdev Singh filed a petition for habeas corpus and an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order on June 12, 2020. The respondents were Chad Wolf, Matthew Albence, and Thomas Decker, identified in the caption by their government positions.
Court’s Analysis
The court reviewed the filings and found that the petition gave no justification for proceeding ex parte, meaning without first giving the opposing parties notice. The order also required Singh to explain where he was currently detained and, as specifically as possible, why jurisdiction—the court’s legal authority to hear the matter—lay in the Southern District of New York. The order cited authority stating that jurisdiction over a habeas petition lies in the district of confinement.
Ruling
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered Singh to serve the habeas petition, temporary-restraining-order motion, and the order on the respondents by 5:00 p.m. on June 17, 2020. By the same deadline, Singh also had to file and serve a statement of no more than two pages addressing his detention location and the basis for jurisdiction. The order did not decide the merits of the habeas petition or the temporary-restraining-order request.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.