Martinez Murillo v. Thompson et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
E LMER J. MARTINEZ MURILLO, 	§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
VS. 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-02327
§
RAYMOND THOMPSON, et al., 	§
§
Respondents. 	§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Elmer J. Martinez Murillo, 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. Nos. 1, 1-1.
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 reflects that Petitioner is a noncitizen who entered the United States
without inspection in 2022. Doc. No. 1-1 at 9. Petitioner does not plead facts to show that
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/ 2
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 31, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-02327 Document 7 Filed 03/31/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

he has been lawfully admitted into the United States, and he does not so contend. He has
been detained for less than a month to date.
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). 	Thus, his detention is mandated by
statute. Accordingly, Petitioner' s Fifth Amendment due process claims are 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); s ee also 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" ).
2 / 2
Therefore, the Court ORDERS as follows :
1. 	The petition (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. 	All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT .
~-l--
SIGNED this 	3 I 	day of March 2026.
ikLl~ANDREW S. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-02327 Document 7 Filed 03/31/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2