Pena Orellana v. Mullin, et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JORGE OBETH PENA ORELLANA, 	§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
vs. 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-02392
§
MARKWA YNE MULLIN, et al., 	§
§
Respondents. 	§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Jorge Obeth Pena Orellana, 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 lawful status in 2021 and has since been placed in removal
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
April 02, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-02392 Document 4 Filed 04/02/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

proceedings. Doc. No. 1 at 4, Doc. No. 1-1 at 1. 	Petitioner does not plead facts to show
that he has been lawfully admitted into the United States, and he does not so contend. He
has been detained for about two months.
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); see 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"). 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 on this __'-__ day of April 2026.
ANDREW S. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2 / 2
Case 4:26-cv-02392 Document 4 Filed 04/02/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2