Gutierrez Morales v. Mullin et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 4:26-cv-03219 Document4 _ Filed 04/28/26 in TXSD Pagelof3

United States District Court
Southem District of Texas

ENTERED
Apnil 29, 2026

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nathan Ochener, Clerk

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

JHOSUE ABRAHAM GUTIERREZ- §
MORALES, §
§
Petitioner, §
§

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-03219
§

MARK WAYNE MULLIN, SECRETARY §
OF U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND §

SECURITY, et al., §

§

Respondents. §
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The petitioner, Jnosue Abraham Gutierrez-Morales, 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). !

' 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 1(b), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the
United States District Courts.

1/3

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 4:26-cv-03219 Document4 Filed 04/28/26 in TXSD Page2of3

The petition reflects that Petitioner is a noncitizen who entered the United States
without inspection and has since been placed in removal proceedings. Doc. No. 1 at 3.
Petitioner does not allege or 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 Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi,
166 F.4th 494, 498 (Sth Cir. Feb. 6, 2026). His arguments regarding bond hearings under
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations are foreclosed by Buenrostro-Mendez.

In addition, 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.” Jd. (citations
omitted); see also 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”).

In addition, his claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) fail
because an “adequate remedy in a court” is available via habeas corpus. 5 U.S.C. § 704;
accord Jimenez v. Noem, Civ. A. No. H-25-5853, at Doc. No. 10 at 5 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 10,
2026) (holding that the petitioner was not entitled to relief under the APA where he was
able to challenge his detention through habeas corpus); see also Trump v. J.G.G., 604 U.S.
670, 674 (2025) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring) (agreeing with the majority “that habeas

corpus, not the APA, is the proper vehicle” where habeas corpus is an available remedy).

2/3

Case 4:26-cv-03219 Document4 _ Filed 04/28/26 in TXSD Page 3of3

Therefore, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. The petition (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED.

2. All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT.
JA
SIGNED this US day of April 2026.

N41

ANDREW S. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3/3