Legal Opinion

(HC) Sho v. S.F. Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

District Court, E.D. California

Decided June 15, 2023No. 1:21-cv-01812Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MONSURU WOLE SHO, No. 1:21-cv-01812 TLN AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 CURRENT OR ACTING FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Petitioner, an immigration detainee, brought this habeas corpus action in pro se under 28 19 U.S.C. § 2241, seeking a bond hearing in relation to ongoing immigration proceedings. ECF No. 20 1. He is now represented by pro bono counsel. ECF No. 42. The government opposes the 21 habeas petition. ECF No. 39. For the reasons explained below…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. Gilbert B. Martinez v. Eddie Ylst, Superintendent, California Medical Facility SouthCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
  3. Jennings v. RodriguezSupreme Court of the United States · 2018
  4. Demore v. KimSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
  5. Vijendra K. Singh v HolderCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API