Guzman-Naranjo v. Bondi et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
YORDANIS GUZMAN-NARANJO, 	§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
VS.
PAMELA BONDI, et al.,
Respondents.
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-01110
§
§
§
§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Yordanis Guzman-Naranjo, 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.
Shortly before Petitioner filed this case, the Fifth Circuit decided Buenrostro-
Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (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 / 2
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 23, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-01110 Document 7 Filed 03/23/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

The petition and supporting documents reflect that Petitioner is a noncitizen who
entered the United States without inspection in 2021. 	Doc. No. 1 at 2, 14 , 20. 	Petitioner
contends that he has been erroneously categorized as a detainee subject to mandatory
detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) and that his continued detention without a bond hearing
violates his due process rights under the Fifth Amendment.
Petitioner's 	arguments 	regarding 	sections 	1225 	and 	1226 	are 	foreclosed 	by
Buenrostro-Me ndez, supra. 	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").
2 / 2
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.
SO ORDERED.
SIGNED on this
(~
~ 	day of March 2026.
ANDREW S. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT ITJDGE
Case 4:26-cv-01110 Document 7 Filed 03/23/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2