Carrizales Serrato v. Thompson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
ALBERTO CARRIZALES SERRATO, 	§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
vs.
RANDY THOMPSON,
Respondent.
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-02950
§
§
§
§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Alberto Carrizales Serrato, 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 Mexican national who
entered the United States without inspection and without lawful status in 2007. 	Doc. No.
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
May 15, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-02950 Document 4 Filed 05/14/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

1 at 1, 2. 	Petitioner does not plead facts to show that he has been lawfully admitted into
the United States. 	Because Petitioner entered without possessing valid entry documents
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).
Therefore, to the extent he argues that he should receive a bond hearing under 8 U.S .C.
§ 1226(a) and its implementing regulations, that claim is foreclosed by Buenrostro-
Mendez. His detention is mandated by statute under section 1225(b)(2).
In addition, Petitioner' s Fifth Amendment due process claims fail. 	Petitioner' s
procedural due process claim is unavailing because the statute mandates detention. 	See
Jenn in gs 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"). 	Hence, a bond hearing to determine whether he is a danger to the
community or a fli ght risk is futile where it would have no bearing on his mandatory
detention.
Likewise, Petitioner's substantive due process 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, 583 	U.S. 	at 297; Carlson v. Landon, 342 U.S. 	524, 538 (1952)
("Detention is necessary a part of th[e] deportation procedure." ); Wong Wing v. United
States, 163 U.S. 228, 235 (1896) ("Proceedings to exclude or expel would be vain if those
accused could not be held in custody pending the inquiry into their true character, and while
2 / 3
Case 4:26-cv-02950 Document 4 Filed 05/14/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

arrangements were being made for their deportation."). Petitioner does not plead facts that
show that he has been detained indefinitely or otherwise show that his detention presently
violates the Constitution.
3 I 3
Therefore, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	This petition (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. 	All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT.
SIGNED this 	/4 k'-day of May 2026.
ANDREWS. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRJCT JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-02950 Document 4 Filed 05/14/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3