Mejia Gallardo v. Bondi et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JESUS MEJIA GALLARDO, 	§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
VS.
PAMELA JO BONDI, et al.,
Respondents.
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-02245
§
§
§
§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Jesus Mejia Gallardo, 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 reflects that Petitioner is a noncitizen who entered the United States
without inspection in 2002. 	Doc. No. 1 at 3. 	Petitioner does not plead facts to show that
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 31, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-02245 Document 4 Filed 03/31/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

he has been lawfully admitted into the United State s, and he does not so contend. 	He has
been detained for about two months to date.
Petitioner argues that, because he was already present in the United States at the
time he was taken into mandatory detention, he was not "seeking admission" and 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 miscategorized as a detainee subject to mandatory detention
under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). 	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-Me ndez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494, 498 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026). 	Thus, his
detention is mandated by statute.
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" ). 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 	Jf ~ 	ay of March 2026 .
ANDREWS. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRJCT JUDGE
2 / 2
Case 4:26-cv-02245 Document 4 Filed 03/31/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2