Socarras Bastida v. Noem et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
ERDWIN JOSE SOCARRAS BASTIDA, 	§
§
Petitioner, 	§
§
VS. 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-00339
§
KRISTI NOEM, et al. , 	§
§
Respondents. 	§
ORDER
On March 23 , 2026, the Court dismissed this petition without prejudice. Pending is
the petitioner' s motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e). Doc. No. 8. For the reasons that follow, the motion will be DENIE D.
I. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 59( e) motions "serve the narrow purpose of allowing a party ' to correct
manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. "' 	Waltman v. Int 'l
Paper Co ., 875 F.2d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). 	Rule 59(e) cannot be
used to introduce evidence that was available prior to the entry of judgment, nor should it
be employed to relitigate old issues, advance new theories or arguments that could have
been raised before the entry of judgment, or secure a rehearing on the merits. Templet v.
HydroChem Inc. , 367 F.3d 473 , 478- 79 (5th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted); see also Sequa
Corp. v. GBJ Corp ., 156 F.3d 136 , 144 (2d Cir. 1998) (holding that a party cannot attempt
1/ 3
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 26, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-00339 Document 9 Filed 06/26/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

to obtain "a second bite at the apple" by presenting new theories or re-litigating old issues
that were previously addressed). 	Reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an
extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly. 	Templet, 367 F.3d at 479.
II. 	DISCUSSION
Petitioner contends that this Court did not consider his constitutional claims. In his
petition, Socarras Bastida argued that he was not "seeking admission" as a person present
in the United States. His supporting documents and cases attached to his petition focus on
his contention that he should be considered detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) rather than
§ 1225(b), an argument rejected by the Fifth Circuit in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166
F.4th 494, 498 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026).
Regarding his due process claims, Petitioner presented those in connection with his
contention that he is being mischaracterized under§ 1225(b). To the extent that he raised
due process claims, those are precluded, at this juncture, by Demore v. Kim , 538 U.S . 510,
531 	(2003), 	because 	"[d]etention 	during 	removal 	proceedings 	is 	a 	constitutionally
permissible part of that process." Id. ( citations omitted); see also Jennings v. Rodriquez,
583 U.S . 281, 297 (2018) (explaining that "§§1225(b)(l) and 1225(b)(2) thus mandate
detention of applicants for admission until certain proceedings have concluded"). He does
not otherwise show that his detention is unconstitutional. Nothing in his motion alters the
Court's conclusion that this case should be dismissed.
2 / 3
Case 4:26-cv-00339 Document 9 Filed 06/26/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

III. 	CONCLUSION AND ORDER
3 I 3
Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	Petitioner's motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 8) is DENIED.
2. 	All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT.
The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to the parties.
'/, 	-r'----
SIGNED on this 	r---C:::, 	day of June 2026.
/~,~-·"'
ANDREW S. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-00339 Document 9 Filed 06/26/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3