Martinez-Leiva v. Noem et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
CRUZ LEANDRO MARTINEZ-LEIVA, 	§
§
Petitioner, 	§
§
VS. 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO . 4:25-CV-04657
§
KRJSTI NOEM, et al. , 	§
§
Respondents. 	§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Cruz Leandro Martinez-Leiva, 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. 	Respondents have filed a motion
for summary judgment, Doc. No. 	10 , Petitioner filed 	a response, Doc. No. 	12 , and
Respondents 	filed 	a reply, Doc. 	No. 	13. 	The 	Court has 	carefully 	considered the
submissions of the parties, the evidence in the record, and the applicable law and concludes
that this petition must be dismissed for the reasons that follow.
The petition and attached exhibits reflect that Petitioner is a national of El Salvador
who entered the United States without inspection and without lawful status in 2015. Doc.
No. 1 at 5. 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
1 / 3
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 11, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-04657 Document 18 Filed 06/10/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

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. 	First, the
applicable statute mandates detention. 	See Jennings v. Rodriquez, 583 U.S. 281, 297
(2018) (explaining that "§§ 1225(b )(1) and 1225(b )(2) thus mandate detention of applicants
for admission until certain proceedings have concluded"). 	Second, "[d]etention during
removal proceedings is a constitutionally permissible part of that process." Demore v. Kim,
538 U.S. 510, 531 (2003); 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. Un ited 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."). Because the
petitioner does not meet his burden to show that his detention violates the Constitution, his
petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be denied.
2 / 3
Therefore, the Court ORDERS as follows :
1. 	Respondents' motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 10) is GRANTED, and
this petition (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. 	Petitioner 's motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 3) is DENIED.
Case 4:25-cv-04657 Document 18 Filed 06/10/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3. 	All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT.
SIGNED on this 	k0 ~y of June 2025.
ANDREW S. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3 / 3
Case 4:25-cv-04657 Document 18 Filed 06/10/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3