Medrano Garcia v. Dickey et al

UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRJCT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JUAN ANTONIO J\1EDRANO GARCIA, 	§
§
Petitioner, 	§
§
VS. 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-00601
§
GRANT DICKEY, et al. , 	§
§
Respondents. 	§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Juan Antonio Medrano Garcia, is a detainee in the custody of United
States Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("IC E" )
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.
While this case was pending, the Fifth Circuit decided Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi,
--- F.4th ----, No. 25-20496, 2026 WL 323330 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026). 	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
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
February 24, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-00601 Document 4 Filed 02/24/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

The petition and attached exhibits reflect that Petitioner is charged with being an
alien present in the United States without having been admitted or paroled. Doc. No. 1-1
at 4. 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 	Buenrostro-Mendez. 	Likewise, 	Petitioner's 	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 )(1) and 12 25(b )(2) thus
mandate detention of applicants for admission until certain proceedings have concluded" ).
In addition, his Fourth Amendment claim rests on his assertion that he wrongly detained
under section 1225, which, as explained above, is contrary to Buenrostro -Me ndez.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	The petition (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED.
2. 	This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
3. 	All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT.
2 / 3
Case 4:26-cv-00601 Document 4 Filed 02/24/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3 I 3
4. 	If the Fifth Circuit, en bane, or the United States Supreme Court enters a decision
that is contrary to the decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, supra, Petitioner
is granted leave to file a motion for reconsideration or initiate a separate petition.
SO ORDERED .
SIGNED on this
t'--
!.""'- 	day of February 2026.
l~~ \ L_
ANDREW S. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-00601 Document 4 Filed 02/24/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3