Umana Cruz v. Dickey et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 4:26-cv-00740 Document8_ Filed 03/18/26 in TXSD Pagelof5

United States District Court
Southem District of Texas

ENTERED

March 18, 2026
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

WILMER ORLANDO UMANA CRUZ
Petitioner,
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-0740

Vv.

GRANT DICKEY, et al.,

MAANNANMNMNMAMNN

Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Wilmer Orlando Umana Cruz (“Petitioner”) brought this action
against Grant Dickey, Raymond Thompson, Bret Bradford, Kristi Noem,
and Pamela Bondi (collectively referred to as “Respondents”),
seeking a writ of habeas corpus.’ Pending before the court is
Petitioner’s Petition for Habeas Corpus (Docket Entry No. 1) and
Respondents’ Response to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and
Motion for Summary Judgment (“Respondents’ MSJ”) (Docket Entry No.
6). For the reasons explained below, Respondents’ MSJ will be
granted and Petitioner’s Petition for Habeas Corpus will be denied.

I. Background
Petitioner, a citizen of El Salvador, entered the United

States in April 2010.” On January 7, 2026, Petitioner was taken

‘Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241 (“Petition for Habeas Corpus”), Docket Entry No. 1, p. 1. For
purposes of identification, all page numbers refer to the
pagination imprinted at the top of the page by the court’s
Electronic Case Filing system.

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

"Id. at 3 9% 9-10.

Case 4:26-cv-00740 Document8_ Filed 03/18/26in TXSD Page2of5

into immigration custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(“ICE”) under § 1225 (b) (2) .?

On January 30, 2026, Petitioner filed a Petition for Habeas
Corpus.’ Petitioner argues that his detention without a bond
hearing violates (1) the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”),
(2) the Fourth Amendment, and (3) substantive and procedural due
process.°

On February 4, 2026, the Respondents filed a motion for
summary judgment opposing Petitioner’s claims.® Petitioner filed
a reply on February 14, 2026.’

II. Analysis

Respondents argue that Petitioner’s Petition for Habeas Corpus
must be denied because his detention is legal under § 1225(b) (2) .?
Neither party disputes that the court has jurisdiction over

Petitioner’s Petition for Habeas Corpus.

SId. at 9 12.

‘Id. at 1.

°Id. at 4-6.

‘Respondents’ MSJ, Docket Entry No. 6.

"Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus and Opposition to Government’s Motion for Summary Judgment,
Docket Entry No. 7.

®8Respondents’ MSJ, Docket Entry No. 6, pp. 1-2.

-2-

Case 4:26-cv-00740 Document8_ Filed 03/18/26 in TXSD Page3of5

A. Petitioner can be legally detained under § 1225(b) (2).

As the Fifth Circuit explained in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi,

166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026), § 1225(b) (2) applies to aliens who
were already present in the United States at the time of their
arrest. Id. at 498, 508. The Fifth Circuit’s analysis and holding
applies in this case.

Petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim fails because it depends
on the rejected statutory interpretation of § 1225 and § 1226.°

Resendiz v. Noem, Civil Action Number 4:25-cv-05940, 2026 WL

445497, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 17, 2026).

B. Petitioner’s detention does not violate due process.

Citing Zadvydas v. Davis, 121 S. Ct. 2491 (2001), Petitioner

argues that his detention without a bond hearing to determine
whether he is a flight risk or danger to the community violates

substantive due process.’® As explained in Garcia De La Cruz v.

Bondi, Civil Action No. H-25-5577, 2026 WL 309939 (S.D. Tex. Feb.
5, 2026), the Supreme Court has made clear that “‘[d]etention
during removal proceedings is a constitutionally permissible part

of that process.’” Id. at *2 (quoting Demore v. Kim, 123 S. Ct.

1708, 1721-22 (2003)).
Petitioner also argues that his detention without a bond

hearing to determine whether he is a flight risk or danger to the

*Petition for Habeas Corpus, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 4 4
20-23.

Id. at 5-6 WI 32-34.

Case 4:26-cv-00740 Document8_ Filed 03/18/26in TXSD Page4of5

community violates procedural due process.” However, “as an
applicant for admission,” Petitioner has “‘only those rights
regarding admission that Congress has provided by statute.’” Singh
v. Noem, No. 1:26-CV-036-H, 2026 WL 306395, at *9 (N.D. Tex. Feb.

3, 2026) (quoting Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam,

140 S. Ct. 1959, 1983 (2020)). Because § 1225(b) (2) does not say
“anything whatsoever about bond hearings’” and because it
“‘mandate[s] detention of applicants for admission until certain
proceedings have concluded,’” Petitioner is not entitled to a bond

hearing as a matter of procedural due process. Id. (quoting

Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830, 842 (2018)).

III. Conclusion and Order

For the reasons explained above, Respondents’ Response to the
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion for Summary Judgment
(Docket Entry No. 6) is GRANTED and Petitioner’s Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Docket Entry No. 1) is

DENIED. The court will enter a final judgment in favor of
Respondents.
117

Case 4:26-cv-00740 Document8_ Filed 03/18/26in TXSD Page5of5

SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 18th day of March, 2026.

F

SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE