Sanchez Hernandez v. Agudelo et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
TOMAS S. H., 	§
Petitioner, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:26-cv-001
§
JUAN AGUDELO, et al., 	§
in their official capacities, 	§
Respondents. 	§
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TO DENY PETITIONER’S HABEAS PETITION
Before the Court is Petitioner’s “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus” (Dkt. No. 1)
(“Petition”) and Respondents’ “Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion
for Summary Judgment” (Dkt. No. 6) (“MSJ”).
The Petition advances only one claim for relief: “Violation of the INA: Request for
Relief Pursuant to Maldonado Bautista.” Dkt. No. 1 at 6. Petitioner should be released, the
Petition argues, because “Respondents are detaining Petitioner in violation of the declaratory
judgment issued in Maldonado Bautista,” which Petitioner argues binds Respondents in this
case. Id. at 4.
This, Petitioner’s one claim, cannot succeed at this time. The class action to which
Petitioner refers as preclusive has recently been limited by the Ninth Circuit to apply to only
the Central District of California. See Bautista v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 26-1044
(9th Cir. Mar. 31, 2026). Without ruling on any standalone issues that could be raised in
another petition, it is thus recommended that the Court (1) DENY the Petition (Dkt. No. 1),
(2) DENY the MSJ (Dkt. No. 6) as moot, and (3) DIRECT the Clerk of Court to close the
case.
The parties have fourteen (14) days from the date of being served with a copy of this
Report and Recommendation in which to file written objections, if any, with the United
States District Judge assigned to the instant case. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When filing an
objection, a party must object to specific facts or legal findings in this Report and
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 28, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 1:26-cv-00001 Document 11 Filed 04/28/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

Recommendation. The District Judge is not required to consider frivolous, conclusive, or
general objections. Battle v. United States Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir.
1987).
If any party fails to timely object to any factual or legal findings in this Report and
Recommendation, the District Judge is not required to conduct a de novo review of the record
before adopting these findings. If the District Judge chooses to adopt such findings without
conducting a de novo review of the record, the parties may not attack those findings on
appeal, except on the grounds of plain error. Alexander v. Verizon Wireless Servs., L.L.C.,
875 F.3d 243, 248 (5th Cir. 2017).
Signed on April 28, 2026.
Karen Betancourt
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00001 Document 11 Filed 04/28/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2