Santana v. Mullin et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
MANUEL EDUARDO SANTANA, 	§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
VS.
MARK.WAYNE MULLIN, etal.,
Respondents.
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-04456
§
§
§
§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Manuel Eduardo Santana, 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 1998. 	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.
l / 3
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 11, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-04456 Document 5 Filed 06/11/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

1 at 5; Doc. No. 1-2 at 1. Petitioner does not plead facts to show that he has been lawfully
admitted into the United States. 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-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
Jennings v. Rodriquez, 583 U.S. 281 , 297 (2018) (explaining that "§§1225(b)(l) and
l 225(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 flight 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-04456 Document 5 Filed 06/11/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

arrangements were being made for their deportation."). Petitioner, who alleges that he has
been detained less than a month, does not plead facts that show that he has been detained
indefinitely or otherwise show that his detention presently violates the Constitution.
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 on this 	l I 	day of June 2026.
~~ANDREW S. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3 / 3
Case 4:26-cv-04456 Document 5 Filed 06/11/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3