Ramos Ramos et al v. Thompson

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 4:26-cv-03199 Document5 Filed 04/28/26 in TXSD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Page 1 of 3

United States District Court
Southem District of Texas

ENTERED
Apni 29, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

HOUSTON DIVISION

HUGO ALBERTO RAMOS RAMOS, et §
al., §
§
Petitioners, §
§

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-03199
§
RAYMOND THOMPSON, §
§
Respondent. §

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Petitioner Hugo Alberto Ramos Ramos is in custody of the United States
Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”)
division, awaiting his removal from the United States. Through Next Friend Marcos
Antonio Valdez, he filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241,
challenging his continued detention. Doc. No. 1. He also moves for a stay of his removal.
Doc. No. 2. A review of the pleadings indicates that the petition fails to state a valid claim
regarding his ongoing detention because it is premature and that the Court lacks jurisdiction
to order a stay of his removal. Accordingly, the petition will be dismissed without
prejudice for the reasons set forth below.

I. BACKGROUND

Ramos Ramos, a citizen of Mexico, alleges that his ongoing detention violates his

rights. His petition and attachments thereto reflect that he has a final order of removal and

1/3

Case 4:26-cv-03199 Document5 - Filed 04/28/26 in TXSD Page2of3

that his application for cancellation of removal was denied on April 2, 2026. Doc. No. 1-
| at 5-6. Because he has a final order of removal, he is subject to detention under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(a). He claims that ICE took him into custody on January 19, 2026. Doc. No. 1 at
1. At the time he filed this petition, he had been detained approximately 3 months. Jd. at
1, 3.

II. DISCUSSION

In Zadvydas v. Davis, 121 S. Ct. 2491 (2001), the Supreme Court held that the
United States Constitution does not permit indefinite detention lasting beyond six months
past the removal period. Jd. at 2505. After the expiration of six months, a noncitizen
detainee subject to a final removal order may seek his release from custody by
demonstrating a “good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal
in the reasonably foreseeable future[.]” Jd. The detainee bears the burden of proof in
showing that no such likelihood of removal exists. Jd. Once this has been shown, the
burden shifts to the government, which “must respond with evidence sufficient to rebut
that showing.” Jd. Not every detainee subject to a final removal order in custody will be
entitled to automatic release after the expiration of the six-month period under the scheme
announced in Zadvydas, however. “To the contrary, a [noncitizen] may be held in
confinement until it has been determined that there is no significant likelihood of removal
in the reasonably foreseeable future.” Jd.

In this case, the petitioner’s pleadings show that he has been confined under his final

order of removal for about 3 months. He does not plead facts to show that he has been in

213

Case 4:26-cv-03199 Document5 - Filed 04/28/26 in TXSD Page 3of3

custody more than six months past the expiration of the removal period, and, therefore,
does not state a claim for relief under Zadvydas. 121 S. Ct. at 2505; Chance v. Napolitano,
453 F. App’x 535, 536 (Sth Cir. 2011) (unpublished op.) (holding that the district court did
not err when it dismissed the petition as premature because the petitioner had not been in
custody for six months past the date the removal order was entered); Okpoju v. Ridge, 115
F. App’x 302 (Sth Cir. 2004) (unpublished op.), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 2528 (2005)
(same). Accordingly, the petition must be dismissed without prejudice as premature.
Il. ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows:

1. Petitioner’s petition is DISMISSED without prejudice as premature.

2. Petitioner’s motion to stay removal (Doc. No. 2) is DENIED for lack of

jurisdiction.
3. All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT.

The Clerk will enter this Order, providing a correct copy to all parties of record.

—

SIGNED this 2 © day of April 2026. \ ]

ANDREW S. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

S13