Paz-Leiva v. Mullin et al

UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRJCT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
EDIN JOSE PAZ-LEIVA, 	§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
vs. 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-02554
§
MARKWA YNE MULLIN, et al. , 	§
§
Respondents. 	§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Edin Jose Paz-Leiva, 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 in 2005 without inspection 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 1(b ), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the
United States District Courts.
1/ 3
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 25, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-02554 Document 5 Filed 06/25/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

proceedings. Doc. No. 1 at 2, 15, Doc. No. 1-1 at 8-10. Petitioner does not plead facts to
show that he has been lawfully admitted into the United States or obtained lawful status in
the interim. 	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" ). 	Similarly, his 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
arrangements were being made for their deportation." ). He does not otherwise plead facts
to show that his detention is unconstitutional.
2 / 3
Case 4:26-cv-02554 Document 5 Filed 06/25/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

Therefore, the Court ORDERS as fo ll ows :
1. 	This petition (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudic e.
2. 	All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT.
SIG 	ED on this 	~ay of June 2026.
ANDREWS . HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3 / 3
Case 4:26-cv-02554 Document 5 Filed 06/25/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3