Galicia Cruz v. Frink et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JOSEFINA GALICIA CRUZ, 	§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
VS.
MARTIN FRINK, et al.,
Respondents.
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-04015
§
§
§
§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Josefina Galicia Cruz, 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 her 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 inspection and without lawful status in 2012. 	Doc. No. 1 at 10 .
Petitioner do es not plead facts to show that she has been lawfully admitted into the United
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 I 3
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 26, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-04015 Document 5 Filed 06/26/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

States. 	Because Petitioner entered without inspection and has not obtained lawful status,
she 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). Therefore, to the extent she argues
that she should receive a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its implementing
regulations, that claim is foreclosed by Buenrostro-Mendez.
In addition, Petitioner' s Fifth Amendment procedural due process 	claims fail
because the statute mandates detention. 	See Jennings v. Rodriquez, 583 U.S. 281, 297
(2018) (explaining that"§§ 1225(b )(1) and 1225(b)(2) thus mandate detention of applicants
for admission until certain proceedings have concluded"). 	Hence, a bond hearing to
detennine whether she is a danger to the community or a flight risk is futile where it would
have no bearing on her mandatory detention.
Likewise, Petitioner's substantive due process claim is precluded, at this juncture,
by Demore v. 	Kim , 538 U.S. 	510, 531 	(2003), because "[d]etention during removal
proceedings is a constitutionally pennissible part of that process." Id. (citations omitted);
see also Jennings , 583 	U.S. 	at 297; 	Carlson v. Landon, 342 U.S. 	524, 538 (1952)
("Detention is necessary a part of th[e] deportation procedure." ); Wong Wing v. United
States , 163 U.S. 228, 235 (1896) ("Proceedings to exclude or expel would be vain if those
accused could not be held in custody pending the inquiry into their true character, and while
arrangements were being made for their deportation."). Petitioner does not plead facts that
show that she has been detained indefinitely or otherwise show that her detention presently
violat es the Constitution.
2 / 3
Case 4:26-cv-04015 Document 5 Filed 06/26/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

Finally, Petitioner's equal protection claim is unavailing because she fails to identify
a similarly situated class that is treated more favorably than noncitizens who entered the
country without valid entry documents, and she does not state facts to show that she 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. 	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 with close relatives available to serve as guardians and
different 	from 	American juveniles 	in 	delinquency 	proceedings 	who 	were 	citizens).
Noncitizens who entered legally with a visa and overstayed are distinct from those who
entered illegally without inspection. 	She does not show that the government has violated
her equal protection rights by treating her differently from those who entered legally.
3 / 3
Therefore, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	This petition (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. 	All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT.
~
SIGNED on this 	~ 	day of June 2026 .
ANDREWS. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRJCT JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-04015 Document 5 Filed 06/26/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3