Alvarado Flores v. Frink et al

UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRJCT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
MARDO VINICIO ALVARADO
FLORES,
§
§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
vs .
MARTIN FRJNK, et al.,
Respondents.
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-04696
§
§
§
§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Mardo Vinicio Alvarado Flores, 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 noncitizen who entered
the United States without inspection in 2010. Doc. No. 1 at 3, 13 . Petitioner does not plead
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
June 23, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-04696 Document 3 Filed 06/24/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

facts to show that he has been lawfully admitted into the United States or obtained lawful
status in the interim. 	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
1225(b)(2) thus mandate detention of applicants for admission until certain proceedings
have concluded").
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
arrangements were being made for their deportation."). Petitioner, who alleges that he has
been detained less than two months, does not plead facts that show that he has been
2 / 3
Case 4:26-cv-04696 Document 3 Filed 06/24/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

detained 	indefinitely 	or 	otherwise 	show 	that 	his 	detention 	presently 	violates 	the
Constitution.
Finally, his Fifth Amendment equal protection claim is unavailing because he fails
to identify a similarly situated class that is treated more favorably than noncitizens who
entered the country without valid entry documents, and he does not state facts to show that
he falls outside of the statutory definition of an applicant for admission under 8 U.S.C. §
1225(b) as interpreted by the Fifth Circuit in Buenrostro -Mendez. See Reno v. Flores , 507
U.S. 292, 306 (1993) (rejecting equal protection claims regarding continued detention
brought by alien juveniles who did not have close relatives to serve as guardians because
they were distinct from alien juveniles with close relatives available to serve as guardians
and different from American juveniles in delinquency proceedings who were citizens).
Noncitizens who entered legally with a visa and overstayed are distinct from those who
entered illegally without inspection. He does not show that the government has violated
his equal protection rights by treating him differently from those who entered legally.
3/3
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 	!).., -\ ~ 	ay of June 2026.
ANDREWS. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-04696 Document 3 Filed 06/24/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3