Chavez Montiel v. Noem et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
SAUL CHAVEZ MONTIEL, 	§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
VS.
KRISTI NOEM, et al. ,
Respondents.
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-01426
§
§
§
§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Saul Chavez Montiel, 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 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 lawful status in 2021 and has since been placed in removal
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
April 06, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-01426 Document 4 Filed 04/06/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

proceedings. 	Doc. No. 1-3 at 2. 	Petitioner does not plead facts to show that he has been
lawfully admitted into the United States, and he does not so contend.
Because Petitioner entered without inspection and has not obtained lawful status, he
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). His arguments regarding bond hearings
under 8 U.S .C. § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations are foreclosed by Buenrostro-
Mendez. 	His detention is mandated by statute under section 1225(b)(2). 	Accordingly,
Petitioner's Fifth Amendment due process 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"). 	His arguments regarding Jennings do not alter the result
here, where he is properly classified under section 1225(b)(2) and not section 1226(a).
Likewise, his arguments regarding the class action in Maldonado Bautista v.
Santacruz, --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2025 WL 3713987 (C.D . Cal. Dec. 18, 2025), fail because
they are based on an interpretation of sections 	1225 and 	1226 that was rejected in
Buenrostro-Mendez. 	See 	Maldonado 	Bautista, 	2025 	WL 	3713987, 	at 	*8-12, appeal
pending sub nom. Bautista, et al. v. United States Department ofHomeland Security, et al.,
No. 26-1044 (9th Cir. Mar. 31, 2026) (granting a stay of the declaratory judgment insofar
as it extends beyond the Central District of California).
2 / 3
Case 4:26-cv-01426 Document 4 Filed 04/06/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

Finally, his claims under the Administrative Procedure Act ("AP A") fail because an
"adequate remedy in a court" is available via habeas corpus. 	5 U.S .C. § 704; accord
Jimenez v. Noem, Civ. A. No. H-25-5853 , at Doc. No. 10 at 5 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 10 , 2026)
(holding that the petitioner was not entitled to relief under the AP A where he was able to
challenge his detention through habeas corpus).
3 / 3
Therefore, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	The petition (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. 	All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT.
/{"---
SIGNED this __t9__ day of April 2026.
i\_b\ bANDREW S. HANEN '-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-01426 Document 4 Filed 04/06/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3