Legal Opinion

Gurjinder S. v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility, et al.

District Court, E.D. California

Decided July 22, 2026No. 1:26-cv-00188Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GURJINDER S., 12 Petitioner, No. 1:26-cv-00188-TLN-CSK 13 14 v. ORDER WARDEN OF THE GOLDEN STATE 15 ANNEX DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 16 Respondents. 17 18 19 This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees1 (ECF No. 15) 20 and Respondents’ Motion to Hold in Abeyance (ECF No. 18). Respondents filed an opposition to 21 the Motion for Attorney’s Fees. (ECF No. 16.) Petitioner filed a reply. (ECF No. 17.) For the 22 reasons set forth below, Petitioner’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is…

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Zadvydas v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
  3. Blum v. StensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  4. Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
  5. Pierce v. UnderwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1988

26 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