Arteaga-Marroquin v. Blanche et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
ANTHONY ALEXANDER ARTEAGA-
MARROQUIN,
§
§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
VS.
TODD BLANCHE, et al.,
Respondents.
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-04464
§
§
§
§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Anthony Alexander Arteaga-Marroquin, is a detainee in the custody
of 	United 	States 	Department 	of 	Homeland 	Security, 	Immigration 	and 	Customs
Enforcement ("IC E" ) 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 reflects that Petitioner is a citizen of El Salvador who entered the United
States without inspection as an unaccompanied minor in 2015. Doc. No. 1 at 4. Petitioner
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/ 3
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 12, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-04464 Document 4 Filed 06/12/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

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 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. 	Petitioner's
procedural due process claim is unavailing because the statute mandates detention. 	See
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"). 	Hence, a bond hearing to determine whether he is a danger to the
community or a flight risk is futile where it would have no bearing on his mandatory
detention.
Likewise, Petitioner 's substantive due process claim is 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 , 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. United
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
2 / 3
Case 4:26-cv-04464 Document 4 Filed 06/12/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

arrangements were being made for their deportation. " ). Petitioner, who alleges that he has
been detained less than a month, does not plead facts that show that he has been detained
indefinitely or otherwise show that his detention presently violates the Constitution.
Finally, to the extent that Petitioner contends that his arrest and detention 1s
unconstitutional based on the Fourth Amendment, those claims cannot succeed in this
habeas proceeding because § 1225(b) provides Respondents ' lawful authority to detain
him. 	S ee Kanda v. Col e, No. 5:26-CV-158, 2026 WL 1014400, at *3-4 (S.D. Tex. Apr.
10 , 2026) (rejecting petitioner' s Fourth Amendment claims regarding arrest and detention)
(citing Ordonez v. Frink, No. 4:25-CV-06386, 2026 WL 143153, at* 1 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 20,
2026)).
3 / 3
Therefore, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	This petition (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. 	All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT.
1"-
SIGNED thi s 	{ 1..- 	day of June 2026 .
ANDREWS. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-04464 Document 4 Filed 06/12/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3