Gonzalez Marquez v. McBride et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
DAYID ALEXANDER GONZALEZ
MARQUEZ,
§
§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
VS.
PAUL MCBRIDE, et al. ,
Respondents.
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-03733
§
§
§
§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, David Alexander Gonzalez Marquez, 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 reflects that Petitioner is a noncitizen who entered the United States
without inspection in 2016 and has since been placed in removal proceedings. Doc. No. 1
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
June 25, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-03733 Document 4 Filed 06/25/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

at 2-3 . Petitioner does not allege or show that he has been lawfully admitted into the United
States. 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). 	His arguments regarding bond
hearings under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations are foreclosed by
Buenrostr o-Mendez.
In addition, Petitioner 's 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" ).
Likewise, his Fifth Amendment equal protection claim is unavailing because he
does not state facts to show that he falls outside of the statutory definition of an applicant
for admission under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) as interpreted by the Fifth Circuit in Buenrostro-
Mendez, and "applicants for admission" all fall under that statute' s purview. He also does
not show that a similarly situated class of people who entered without inspection are treated
more favorably than he. 	See Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 306 (1993) (rejecting equal
protection claims regarding continued detention brought by alien juveniles who did not
have close relatives to serve as guardians because they were distinct from alien juveniles
2 / 3
Case 4:26-cv-03733 Document 4 Filed 06/25/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

with close relatives available to serve as guardians and different from American juveniles
in delinquency proceedings who were citizens).
In addition, his claims under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") 	fail
because an "adequate remedy in a court" is available via habeas corpus. 	5 U.S.C. § 704;
accord Jimenez v. Noem, Civ. A. No. H-25-5853, at Doc. No. 10 at 5 (S.D . Tex. Feb. 10 ,
2026) (holding that the petitioner was not entitled to relief under the AP A where he was
able to challenge his detention through habeas corpus); see also Trump v. JG. G. , 604 U.S.
670, 674 (2025) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring) (agreeing with the majority "that habeas
corpus, not the AP A, is the proper vehicle" where habeas corpus is an available remedy).
Concomitantly, his related Suspension Clause claim fails because habeas remains available
to challenge immigration detention. See Jimenez, Civ. A. No. H-25-5853; Trump, 604 U. S.
at 674.
3 I 3
Therefore, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	The petition (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED.
2. 	All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT.
_.-----f'-
SIGNED on this 	1... _) 	day of June 2026.
~ 	lbANDREW S. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-03733 Document 4 Filed 06/25/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3