Valdivia v. Warden, El Valle Detention Facility

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 1:26-cv-00643 Document9 _ Filed 06/26/26 in TXSD Pagelof5
United States District Court

Southem District of Texas
ENTERED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT June 26, 2026
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
CHRISTHOPHER G.V., ! §
Petitioner, §
§
v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:26-cv-643
§
WARDEN, EL VALLE DETENTION §
FACILITY, et al., §
Respondents. §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TO DENY PETITIONER’S HABEAS PETITION

Before the Court is Petitioner’s “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus” (Dkt. No. 1)
(‘Petition’). For the following reasons, the Court should deny the Petition.

Petitioner? is currently detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the El
Valle Detention Center in Willacy County, Texas. Dkt. No. 1 at 1. Petitioner states he was
taken into custody on February 5, 2026. Dkt. No. 1 at 4. The Court takes judicial notice that
an immigration judge ordered Petitioner removed on June 10, 2026, and at the time this
Report and Recommendation is issued, the period to appeal that decision has not yet
elapsed.? See Attachment 1. Petitioner argues his detention violates the due process clause of
the Fifth Amendment and argues he is entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. §1226(a).
Dkt. No. | at 6-7.

Petitioner is detainable under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi,
166 F.4th 494, 498 (Sth Cir. 2026), and, as pleaded, Petitioner’s constitutional claims are not
viable. Detention “during removal proceedings,” even where such detention is without a

bond hearing, is generally a “constitutionally permissible part of that process.” Demore v.

' Due to significant privacy concerns in immigration cases and noting that judicial opinions are not subject
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2, any opinion, order, judgment, or other disposition in this case will
refer to the petitioner only by first name and last initial.

> Petitioner proceeds pro se, without a legal representative, and receives the benefit of liberal construction
of his claims. See Kaltenbach vy. Richards, 464 F.3d 524, 527 (Sth Cir. 2006).

> See Fed. R. Civ. P. 201(b).

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 531 (2003). While the Court has acknowledged the possibility of
instances where such detention could strain constitutional limits, see, e.g., id. at 532
(Kennedy, J., concurring), Petitioner has not raised that family of issues in this Petition, see
Dkt. No. 1 at 6-7.
It is therefore recommended that the Court (1) DENY the Petition (Dkt. No. 1) and
(2) DIRECT the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The parties have fourteen (14) days from the date of being served with a copy of this
Report and Recommendation in which to file written objections, if any, with the United
States District Judge assigned to the instant case. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When filing an
objection, a party must object to specific facts or legal findings in this Report and
Recommendation. The District Judge is not required to consider frivolous, conclusive, or
general objections. Battle v. United States Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir.
1987).
If any party fails to timely object to any factual or legal findings in this Report and
Recommendation, the District Judge is not required to conduct a de novo review of the record
before adopting these findings. If the District Judge chooses to adopt such findings without
conducting a de novo review of the record, the parties may not attack those findings on
appeal, except on the grounds of plain error. Alexander v. Verizon Wireless Servs., L.L.C.,
875 F.3d 243, 248 (5th Cir. 2017).
Signed on June 26, 2026.
Karen Betancourt
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00643 Document 9 Filed 06/26/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 5

Case 1:26-cv-00643 Document 9
Filed 06/26/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 5
Attachment 1

Case 1:26-cv-00643 Document 9

Filed 06/26/26 in TXSD Page 4of5

©

Court Closures Today June 25, 2026

Please check https://www, justice, gov/eoir-operational-status for up to date closures.

Home > (I. cHRisTHOPER MANUEL GR)

Automated Case Information
Name: i, CHRISTHOPER MANUEL | A-Number: i |

Docket Date: 9/27/2022

8 Next Hearing Information

There are no future hearings for
this case.

“4 BIA Case Information

An appeal is due by July 10, 2026.

= Court Decision and Motion
Information

The immigration judge ordered REMOVAL.

DECISION DATE
June 10, 2026

COURT ADDRESS
1800 INDUSTRIAL DR
RAYMONDVILLE, TX 78580

1 court Contact Information

If you require further information regarding
your case, or wish to file additional
documents, please contact the immigration
court.

COURT ADDRESS
16800 GREENSPOINT PRK DR, 2 FL
HOUSTON, TX 77060

Case 1:26-cv-00643 Document9 _ Filed 06/26/26 in TXSD Page5of5

Archive
Accessibility

Information
Quality
Privacy Policy

Legal Policies &
Disclaimers

PHONE NUMBER
(281) 765-5900

Social Media

27 iva Ve
ae a gration Court (

APRion (Aion ARE

Budget &
Performance

Office of the
Inspector
General

No FEAR Act

For Employe

Department of Justice | Executive Office for Immigr.
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2600, Falls Church, VA 22041