Lua Sosa v. Bradford et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JESUS ALBERTO LUA SOSA, 	§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
VS. 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO . 4:26-CV-02210
§
BRETT A. BRADFORD, et al., 	§
§
Respondents. 	§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Jesus Alberto Lua Sosa, 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.
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 does
not have lawful status in the United States and entered the United States without inspection
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
March 25, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-02210 Document 4 Filed 03/25/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

more than 12 years ago. 	Doc. No. 1 at 8. 	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 ).
Petitioner's arguments regarding sections 1225 and 1226 and their implementing
regulations are foreclosed by the Fifth Circuit's decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi,
166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026). 	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, among other things, 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. 6, 2026) (temporarily
staying the declaratory judgment insofar as it extends beyond the Central District of
California pending a ruling on the motion to stay).
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").
2 / 3
Case 4:26-cv-02210 Document 4 Filed 03/25/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 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.
,-t'-
~ 	day of March 2026.	SIGNED on this
ANDREW S. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3 I 3
Case 4:26-cv-02210 Document 4 Filed 03/25/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3