Al Shaibah v Frink

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
SALEH AL SHAIBAH,
Petitioner,
versus
MARTIN FRINK,
Respondent.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:26-cv-05473
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
OPINION AND ORDER ON DISMISSAL
Petitioner Saleh Al Shaibah filed a petition for writ of
habeas corpus under 28 USC §2241 on July 10, 2026. Dkt 1.
He proceeds here pro se.
Documents attached to the petition show that
Petitioner was granted status as a lawful permanent
resident in 2005. Dkt 1-1 at 4. In December 2025, he was
detained and charged with removability based on a
controlled-substances conviction. Id at 4–5. He was found
removable in February 2026, and his applications for
cancelation of removal, for asylum, and for withholding of
removal were denied in April 2026. Id at 5. His appeal of
the order of removal is currently pending. Id at 3. He
appears to contend in his current petition that his
continued detention is unlawful as a violation of the Due
Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Dkt 1 at 6–7.
A district court entertaining an application for a writ
of habeas corpus “shall forthwith award the writ” or issue
a show cause order “unless it appears from the application
that the applicant or person detained is not entitled
thereto.” 28 USC §2243. A petition brought under 28 USC
§2241 is subject to summary dismissal if it “plainly appears
from the face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not
entitled to relief.” Kiser v Johnson, 163 F3d 326, 328
Case 4:26-cv-05473 Document 5 Filed 07/22/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
(5th Cir 1999), quoting Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases. See also Rule 1(b) of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases (permitting courts to apply
such rules to habeas petitions not covered by Rule 1(a),
including §2241 petitions).
The petition and its attachments make clear that
Petitioner’s removal order isn’t yet final. Dkt 1-1 at 3. As
such, he isn’t detained under 8 USC §1231, and the
presumptively constitutional six-month post-final-order
detention period provided by Zadvydas v Davis, 533 US
678 (2001), hasn’t yet begun.
The propriety of detention in this matter instead
proceeds under §1226(c), which requires detention of
persons deportable based on a conviction for violating any
federal or state controlled-substances law. §1227(a)(2)(B).
Release from detention is permitted only if the Attorney
General determines, in the exercise of discretion, that
release is necessary for witness protection and that the
person doesn’t pose a danger to the community and isn’t a
flight risk. §1226(c)(4).
The Supreme Court holds that persons detained under
§1226(c) “are not entitled to be released under any
circumstances other than those expressly recognized by the
statute.” Jennings v Rodriguez, 583 US 281, 303 (2018).
The statute also “makes clear that detention of aliens
within its scope must continue ‘pending a decision on
whether the alien is to be removed from the United
States.’” Ibid, quoting 8 USC §1226(a) (emphasis in
original). The argument that due process requires an
opportunity for release before that time was expressly
rejected:
In Demore v Kim, 538 US [510] at 529
[2003], we distinguished §1226(c) from the
statutory provision in Zadvydas [v Davis,
533 US 678 (2001)] by pointing out that
detention under §1226(c) has “a definite
termination point”: the conclusion of
removal proceedings. As we made clear
there, that “definite termination point”—
Case 4:26-cv-05473 Document 5 Filed 07/22/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
and not some arbitrary time limit devised
by courts—marks the end of the
Government’s detention authority under
§1226(c).
Jennings, 583 US at 304.
Petitioner admitted at his removal hearing that he was
convicted of a qualifying controlled-substances offense. His
removal proceedings are not yet final. He is detained under
§1226(c) at the discretion of the Attorney General. No
jurisdiction exists to review that decision. 8 USC §1226(e).
As such, it appears from the face of the petition that
Petitioner is not entitled to relief. The petition will thus be
dismissed with prejudice on the basis presently submitted.
* * *
The petition for writ of habeas corpus by Petitioner
Saleh Al Shaibah is DENIED. Dkt 1.
This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Any pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
A final judgment will enter separately.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on July 22, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
__________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
Case 4:26-cv-05473 Document 5 Filed 07/22/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3