Rubio Godinez v. Thompson et al

UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRJCT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
MAGDALENO RUBIO GODINEZ, 	§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
VS.
RAYMOND THOMPSON, et al.,
Respondents.
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-00546
§
§
§
§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Magdaleno Rubio Godinez, 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 continued detention. Doc. No. 1. 	Respondents have filed
a re sponse and motion for summary judgment. 	Doc. No. 5. 	Petitioner filed a reply in
opposition. Doc. No. 6.
The summary judgment evidence in the record shows that Petitioner was charged
with having entered the United States unlawfully without inspection and without having
been admitted or paroled. 	Doc. No. 1-3 ; Doc. No. 5 at 2. 	The uncontroverted evidence
also indicates that on November 6, 2025, after a hearing on the merits, an Immigration
Judge ordered Petitioner removed. 	Doc. No. 5-1 at 4. 	Petitioner's appeal of his removal
order is pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals. Id. at 5.
1 I 3
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 23, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-00546 Document 7 Filed 03/23/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

Petitioner contends that he is entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a),
the statute permitting discretionary bond, and that he has been erroneously categorized as
a detainee subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). 	Petitioner' s
arguments regarding sections 	1225 and 	1226 and their implementing regulations are
foreclosed by the Fifth Circuit's decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494
(5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026). 	Likewise, his Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause 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"). 1 	Petitioner 's claim under the
Administrative Procedure Act ("AP A") is also unavailing because an "adequate remedy in
a court" is available via habeas corpus. 	5 U.S.C. § 704.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	The petition (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED .
2. 	Respondents ' motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 5) is GRANTED.
3. 	This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
1 The Court further observes that Petitioner has been afforded a merits hearing regarding
removability, was ordered removed, and has exercised his right to appeal his removal order. While
those proceedings are ongoing and have not concluded, he is detained under section 1225(b)(2),
as explained in Jennings, supra.
2 / 3
Case 4:26-cv-00546 Document 7 Filed 03/23/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

4. 	All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT.
ft_
SIGNED on this 	d: ~ 	day of March 2026.
J\,:~\~
ANDREW S. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3 / 3
Case 4:26-cv-00546 Document 7 Filed 03/23/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3