Tolentino Moreno v. Thompson et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
CIRILO TOLENTINO MORENO,
Petitioner,
v.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-1654
RAYMOND THOMPSON, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Cirilo Tolentino Moreno ("Petitioner"), a citizen of Mexico,
entered the United States without inspection on May 1, 2000.1 In
December of 2025, Petitioner was taken into custody following a
traffic stop conducted by local law enforcement.2 On December 19,
2025, Petitioner was served with a Notice to Appear charging him
with removeability pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), "as an
alien who is a native and citizen of Mexico who is present in the
United States without being admitted or paroled."3 On December 20,
2025, Pet oner was transferred to the custody Immigration and
Customs Enforcement ("ICE").4 Petitioner remains in immigration
custody.
1Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Habeas Petition"),
Docket Entry No. 1, p. 5 i 11. For purposes of identification, all
page numbers refer to the pagination imprinted at the top of the
page by the court's Electronic Case Filing system.
2Id. at 6 1 13.
3The Federal Respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment
("Respondents' MSJ"), Docket Entry No. 10, pp. 1
4Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 6 1 13.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 03, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-01654 Document 12 Filed 06/03/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

Pending before the court is Petitioner's Habeas Petition
(Docket Entry No. 1). ioner argues that his detention without
a bond hearing violates (1) the Immigration and Nationality Act
("INA"), (2) due process, (3) equal protection, and (4) the
Suspension Clause, and is arbitrary and capricious under the
Administrative Procedure Act1 ("APA").5 Petitioner also argues that
his warrantless arrest violates the Accardi doctrine.6 On March 3,
2026, the court entered an order asking oner to distinguish
his case from Jimenez v. Noem, Civil Action No. H-25-5853 (S.D.
Tex. Feb. 10, 2026).7 In his response, Petitioner did not dispute
that Jimenez forecloses s claims under the INA, the Due Process
Clause, the Suspensions Clause, and the APA.8 However, Petitioner
argues that his claim under the Accardi doctrine was not addressed
in Jimenez. 9 Moreover, after Respondents failed to submit a
at 25-40 �<j[ 74-142.
at 40-42 <j[<Jl: 14 3.
7Order, Docket Entry No. 4, p. 1. In Jiminez, the court held
that (1) an alien who was already present in the United States at
the time of their arrest can be lawfully detained under §
1225(b)(2); (2) a claim under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment fails because the Supreme Court; has recognized that
detention during removal proceedings is a constitutionally
permissible part of that process; (3) a petitioner is foreclosed
from under the APA because he is able to challenge his
detention by filing a writ of habeas corpus; (4) a claim under the
Suspension Clause fails because§ 1252 does not strip this court of
jurisdiction over these petitions. �
8Petitioner's Response to Order and
Entry No. 5, pp. 1-2. in Support, Docket
ioner does not reassert his Fifth Amendment Equal
{continued... )
-2-
Case 4:26-cv-01654 Document 12 Filed 06/03/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

r�sponse or a motion for extension by the March 31, 2026, deadline,
Petitioner moved for summary judgment (Docket Entry No. 7).10
Also pending before the court is Respondents' Motion for
Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 10). Respondents argue that
Petitioner is legally detained under§ 1225(b)(2) because he is an
applicant for admission and that the legality of his arrest cannot
be used to challenge the legality of his detention.11 Pet ioner
has filed a reply. 12
Pet ioner cannot seek habeas relief under the
doctrine. Although Petitioner alleges he was arrested without a
warrant in violation of 8 CFR § 287. 8(c) ( 2)(ii), 13 "an illegal
arrest has no bearing on the legality of detention following that
arrest." Carnesolta v. Tate, Civil Action Number 4:26-cv-01006,
2026 WL 948727, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 8, 2026).
Moreover, Petitioner's "Fifth Amendment equal protection
is unavailing because he ils to identify a similarly situated
class that is treated more favorably than noncitizens who entered
the country without inspection, and he does not state facts to show
9( •••continued)
Protection claim. The court will address the claim nonetheless.
10Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to FRCP 56, Docket Entry
No. 7, p. 2.
11Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 10, pp. 1, 4.
12Reply in Opposition to Respondents' Motion for Summary
Judgment, Docket Entry No. 11.
13Petitioner's Response to Order and Brief in Support, Docket
Entry No. 5, pp. 2-3.
-3-
Case 4:26-cv-01654 Document 12 Filed 06/03/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

that he falls outside of the statutory definition of an applicant
for admission under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) as interpreted by the Fifth
Circuit in Buenrostro-Menendez."14 Soy v. Blanche, CIVIL ACTION NO.
4:26-CV-02808, 2026 WL 1018345, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 15, 2026).
For the reasons explained above, The Federal Respondents'
Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 10) is GRANTED, and
Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket Entry No.
1) and Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to FRCP 56 (Docket
Entry No. 7) are DENIED.
The court will enter a final judgment in favor of Respondents.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 3rd day of June, 2026.
SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14Although Respondents led to address Petitioner's equal
protection claim in their Motion for Summary Judgment, Respondents
are entitled to summary judgment under Rule 56(e)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure because Petitioner has to show that
detention during removal proceedings violates equal protection.
-4-
Case 4:26-cv-01654 Document 12 Filed 06/03/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4