Maldonado Lozano v. Blanche et al

UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
SANTANA MALDONADO LOZANO, 	§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
vs.
TODD BLANCHE, et al. ,
Respondents.
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO . 4 :2 6-CV-02983
§
§
§
§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Santana Maldonado Lozano, is a detainee in the custody of United
States Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE")
officials. Through counsel, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2241 , challenging his detention. Doc. No. 1.
The Court may dismiss a habeas petition on the pleadings "[i]f it plainly appears
from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule
4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (authorizing
preliminary review and summary dismissal of habeas petitions on the pleadings). 1
The petition and attached exhibits reflect that Petitioner is a noncitizen who entered
the United States without lawful status in 2012 and has since been placed in removal
1 A district court may apply any of the rules governing habeas petitions filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 to those filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Rule l(b), Rules Governing§ 2254 Cases in the
United States District Courts.
1 / 3
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 21, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-02983 Document 4 Filed 04/21/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

proceedings. Doc. Nos. 1, 1-3. 	Petitioner does not plead facts to show that he has been
lawfully admitted into the United States, and he does not so contend.
The Court observes that Maldonado Lozano asserted similar claims regarding his
immigration detention when he was confined in the Eastern District of Texas in another
case, 2 and that Court denied his habeas petition for the same reasons that this Court denies
them here as explained below. 	See Maldonado Lozano v. Bondi, Civ. No. 9:26-cv-0054,
at Doc. No. 11 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 11 , 2026).
Because Petitioner entered without inspection and has not obtained lawful status, he
is an applicant for admission subject to 8 U.S.C . § 1225(b)(2). See Buenrostro-Mendez v.
Bondi, 166 F.4th 494, 498 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026). 	To the extent that he seeks a bond
hearing regarding his detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations,
such claim is foreclosed by Buenrostro-Mendez.
In addition, his Fifth Amendment due process claims 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").
2 Counsel for petitioner did not disclose this earlier case or state how his circumstances have
changed since that case was dismissed; indeed, his circumstances did not change for the better.
According to the pleadings in this case , he was transferred to the Montgomery County Jail in
March to face DUI charges to which he pleaded guilty on April 10 , 2026, then was returned to
immigration custody at the Montgomery Processing Center on April 	11, 2026 , within the
jurisdiction of the Southern District of Texas.
2 / 3
Case 4:26-cv-02983 Document 4 Filed 04/21/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

Finally, his claims related to "separation of powers" fail because habeas corpus is
available as a judicial remedy to challenge immigration detention. 	See, e.g., Jimenez v.
Noem , Civ. A. No. H-25-5853 , at Doc. No. 10 at 6 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 10 , 2026) (noting that
the petitioner was able to challenge his detention by filing a writ of habeas corpus); Trump
v. JG. G., 604 U. S. 670, 674 (2025) (Kavanaugh, J. , concurring) (noting that habeas corpus
is the proper reme dy to challenge immigration detention).
Therefore, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	The petition (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED, and this case is DISMISSED.
2. 	All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT.
SIGNED this 	2t _s+- day of April 2026.
ANDREW S. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3 / 3
Case 4:26-cv-02983 Document 4 Filed 04/21/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3