Muniz Mosqueda v. Lyons, et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
REYNALDO MUNIZ MOSQUEDA, 	§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
VS.
TODD ML YONS, et al.,
Respondents.
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-01841
§
§
§
§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Reynaldo Muniz Mosqueda, is a detainee in the custody of United
States Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE")
officials. Through counsel, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241, challenging his continued 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 pleadings reflect that Petitioner is a noncitizen who entered the United States
without inspection in 2008, remained in the United States without being admitted legally,
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 I 3
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 25, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-01841 Document 5 Filed 03/25/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

was apprehended in December 2025 in a targeted raid, and is being held without bond
under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) as an applicant for admission. 	See Doc. No. 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 in removal proceedings prior to a final order of removal, and
that he has been miscategorized 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 recent decision in Buenrostro-Me ndez v.
Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026). In addition, Petitioner' s Fifth Amendment
Due Process Clause claim is 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" ).
Petitioner' s claims under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") and Fourth
Amendment are also unavailing. 	The AP A claim fails because an "adequate remedy in a
court" is available via habeas corpus. 	5 U.S .C. § 704. 	The Fourth Amendment claim,
which is premised on a lack of authority to arrest and detain under section 1226(a) and its
related regulations, fails because, as explained above, the pleadings reflect that Petitioner
entered without inspection and, therefore, is an "applicant for admission" subject to section
1225, not 1226. 	See Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th at 507-08 ; see also Vargas
2 / 3
Case 4:26-cv-01841 Document 5 Filed 03/25/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

Ordonez v. Frink, et al., Civ. A. No. 4:25-cv-6386, 2026 WL 143153, at* 1 (S.D. Tex. Jan.
20 , 2026) (holding that petitioner's Fourth Amendment claim was foreclosed because it
"relies on assertion of the Government' s lack of authority to detain him under§ 1225").
3 / 3
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.
/--\--
SIGNED on this 	?_.) 	day of March 2026.
ANDREW S. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-01841 Document 5 Filed 03/25/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3