USA v. Srivastva

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
NAVALKISHOR SRIVASTVA,
Defendant.
CASE NO. 3:26-cr-00462-JRK
DISTRICT JUDGE JAMES R. KNEPP, II
MAGISTRATE JUDGE DARRELL A. CLAY
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO QUASH WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS AD PROSEQUENDUM
Defendant Navalkishor Srivastva filed a motion to quash a writ of habeas corpus ad
prosequendum that I issued on October 8, 2026. (ECF #14, 16). The United States sought the
writ to effectuate Mr. Srivastva’s appearance for an arraignment currently scheduled for 2:30 p.m.
on October 15, 2026. (ECF #12). District Judge James R. Knepp, II referred the motion to me for
disposition. (Non-document entry of Oct. 13, 206).
Mr. Srivastva is under indictment in this court for mail fraud, wire fraud, and use of a
fictitious name in the course of a fraud. (ECF #1). He was arrested in Pennsylvania, and ordered
released after a detention hearing in that court. (ECF #3). The release order was initially stayed on
the government’s motion, but after de novo review in this court, the release order was ultimately
upheld. (ECF #4, 11). But because Mr. Srivastva was subject to a detainer issued by Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE), he was not actually released rom custody. Instead, he transferred
from the custody of the United States Marshals Service (USMS) to that of ICE. (See ECF #12). He
is currently housed in the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center, Youngstown, OH (Id.).
For the reasons set forth in United States v. Mancebo-Garcia, No. 23-CR-132-JFH-1, 2023
WL 3330233 (N.D. Okla. May 9, 2023), and United States v. Villa, No. 18-20062-01-DDC, 2019
WL 1454048 (D. Kan. Apr. 2, 2019), I conclude the writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum I
previously issued (without the benefit of the parties’ briefing) must be revoked. Ordinarily, a writ
of habeas corpus ad prosequendum is used to effectuate the temporary transfer of a defendant
Case: 3:26-cr-00462-JRK Doc #: 18 Filed: 10/14/26 1 of 2. PageID #: <pageID>

2
from the custody of one sovereign to that of another. See Wardell v. Wilson, No. 10-294-GFVT,
2011 WL 6027072, at *2-3 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 5, 2011). Usually, this means a transfer between state
and federal authorities. See id.
That is not, however, the case here. Mr. Srivastva was formerly under the custody of the
USMS; now he is in the custody of ICE. Both USMS and ICE are creatures of the executive
branch of a single sovereign: the federal government. No second sovereign is implicated. Under
such circumstances, the judicial branch should not interfere. As the court explained in United
States v. Ailon-Ailon, 875 F.3d 1334, 1337 (10th Cir. 2017):
In any event, to the extent any conflict exists, it is a matter for the Executive Branch
to resolve internally. “The problem here is not that defendant will absent himself
from the jurisdiction, but that two Article II agencies will not coordinate their
respective efforts . . . . It is not appropriate for an Article III judge to resolve Executive
Branch turf battles.”
Id. at 1339 (quoting United States v. Barrerra-Omana, 638 F.Supp.2d 1008, 1111 (D. Minn. 2009)).
Ultimately, it is up to the Executive Branch agencies of the federal government to coordinate
among themselves without judicial involvement.
The writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum is hereby REVOKED and the October 15,
2026 arraignment date is VACATED. If the United States can arrange Mr. Srivastva’s appearance
for arraignment (either in person or by video), then it may contact the Clerk to arrange a new
setting.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 14, 2026
DARRELL A. CLAY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 3:26-cr-00462-JRK Doc #: 18 Filed: 10/14/26 2 of 2. PageID #: <pageID>