Larena Labrada v. Thompson

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JOSE ROLANDO LARENA LABRADA, §
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
v.
RAYMOND THOMPSON,
Respondent.
CIVIL ACTION NO.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
6-1633
Dania Donate Marrero has filed this habeas petition as next of
friend to Jose Rolando Larena Labrada ("Petitioner").1 Petitioner,
who is a citizen of Cuba, entered the United States without
inspection on March 3, 2022.2 On March 6, 2022, Petitioner was
arrested by United States Customs and Border Patrol and was served
with a Notice to Appear, charging him with removability under 8
U.S.C. § 1182 (a) (6) (A) (i), "as an alien present in the United
States without being admitted or paroled, or who arrived in the
United States at any time or place other than as designated by the
Attorney General."3 Petitioner was then released on his own
1Ultra-Extensive Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ("Habeas Petition"), Docket Entry No. 1, p. 1.
For purposes of identification, all page numbers refer to the
pagination imprinted at the top of the page by the court's
Electronic Case Filing system.
2Response to the Pet ion for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion
to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction and, in the
Alternative for Summary Judgment ("Respondent's MTD"), Docket Entry
No. 1 7, p. 2.
3.I.ct.:..
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 16, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-01633 Document 18 Filed 07/16/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 5

recognizance. 4 On January 20, 2026, Petitioner was taken into
Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody. 5 Petitioner remains
in immigration custody. 6
Pending before the court is Petitioner's Habeas Petition
(Docket Entry No. 1). 7 Petitioner argues that his detention
without a bond hearing violates due process and that his
warrant ss arrest violates the Fourth Amendment. 8 Also pending
before the court is Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (Docket Entry
No. 5) . Respondent argues that Marrero does not meet the
requirements to represent Petitioner as next of friend. 9
Alternatively, Respondent argues that Petitioner is legally
detained under § 1225(b)(2) because he
admission. 10 Petitioner has not filed a reply.
an applicant for
The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action.
Next-friend filings will be recognized only when the next-friend
at 2-3.
5 Id. at 3.
7 Petitioner, through Marrero, has also led an Emergency
Motion for Immediate Release (Docket Entry No. 2), an Emergency
Motion to Expedite Habeas Corpus Proceedings (Docket Entry No. 3),
an Emergency Motion for Temporary Res.training Order and Request for
Immediate Relief (Docket Entry No. 4), and an Emergency Motion for
Stay of Removal (Docket Entry No. 5).
8Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 2.
9Respondent's MTD, Docket Entry No. 17, p. 1.
10.lQ..._ at 2.
-2-
Case 4:26-cv-01633 Document 18 Filed 07/16/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 5

(1) "provide[s] an adequate explanation-such as inaccessibility,
mental incompetence, or other disability-why the real party in
interest cannot appear on his own behalf to prosecute the action,"
(2) establishes she is "truly dedicated to the best interests of
the on on whose behalf [s] he seeks to litigate," and (3)
establishes that she "ha[s] some significant relationship with the
real party in interest." Whitmore v. Arkansas, 110 s. Ct. 1717,
1727 (1990). Although "[t] he burden is on the 'next-friend'
clearly to establish the propriety of his status and thereby
justify jurisdiction court," Marrero fails to allege any
of the elements required to represent Petitioner as next of
friend.11 Id. The court therefore lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over this action. In re United Operating, LLC, 540
F.3d 351, 354-55 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008) (holding that a lack of
standing deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction because
standing is one aspect of the constitutional requirement that a
case ent an actual case or controversy).
However, even if Marrero satisfies the requirements to
represent Petitioner as next of friend, the claims raised in
Petitioner's Habeas Petition are without merit. Because "presence
without admission deems [Petitioner] to be [an] applicant[] for
admission," Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under §
11Moreover, the record establishes that Pet is capable
of appearing on his own behalf to prosecute the action, given that
he filed his own habeas pet ion with this court. Respondent's
MTD, Docket Entry No. 17, p. 6 (citing Jose Rolando Larena Labrada
v. Marta M. Mata, No. 4:26-cv-3839, (S.D. Tex. May 13, 2026).
-3-
Case 4:26-cv-01633 Document 18 Filed 07/16/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 5

1225(b)(2). Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494, 498, 502
(5th Cir. 2026). This mandatory detention does not violate
substantive or procedural due process. As explained in Garcia De
La Cruz v. Bondi, Civil Action No. H-25-5577, 2026 WL 309939 (S.D.
Tex. Feb. 5, 2026), the Supreme Court has made clear that
"' [d] etention during removal proceedings is a constitutionally
permissible part of that process.'" Id. at *2 (quoting Demore v.
Kim, 123 S. Ct. 1708, 1721-22 (2003)). Moreover, as explained in
Jacobo-Ventura v. Dickey, Civil Action No. H-25-6117 (S.D. Tex.
Feb. 19, 2026), because Petitioner only has those rights regarding
admission that Congress has provided by statute, and because §
1225(b)(2) mandates detention of applicants for admission until
certain proceedings have concluded, Petitioner is not entitled to
a bond hearing as a matter of procedural due process.
Moreover, as explained in Portillo v. Tate, Civil Action No.
H-26-0158 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 25, 2026), Petitioner's Fourth Amendment
claim is foreclosed because it rel on the assertion that the
Government lacks the authority to detain him under § 1225.12
For the reasons explained above, Respondents' Motion to
Dismiss (Docket Entry No. 17) is GRANTED, and Petitioner's Ultra
Extensive Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 (Docket Entry No. 1), Emergency Motion for Immediate Release
(Docket Entry No. 2), Emergency Motion to Expedite Habeas Corpus
12 Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 2.
-4-
Case 4:26-cv-01633 Document 18 Filed 07/16/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 5

Proceedings (Docket Entry No. 3), Emergency Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and Request for Immediate Relief (Docket Entry
No. 4), and Emergency Motion for Stay of Removal (Docket Entry No.
5) are DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The court will enter a final judgment in favor of Respondents.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 16th day of July, 2026.
SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-5-
Case 4:26-cv-01633 Document 18 Filed 07/16/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 5