Pineda Luna v. Tate et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
DILCIA ESTHER PINEDA-LUNA, §
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
v.
RANDY TATE, et al.,
Respondents.
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-2694
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Dilcia Esther Pineda-Luna ("Petitioner"), a citizen of
Honduras, entered the country without inspection in 2018. 1 On
October 10, 2018, Petitioner was taken into immigration custody and
was released on her own recognizance on October 25, 2018.2 On
March 24, 2026, Petitioner was redetained by Immigration and
Customs Enforcement and was served with a Notice to Appear charging
her with inadmissibility pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (a) (6) (A) (i),
"as an alien present in the United States without being admitted or
paroled, or who arrived in the United States at any time or place
1Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241 and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief ("Habeas
Petition"), Docket Entry No. 1, p. 3 1 4; Response to the Petition
for Wr of Habeas Corpus and Motion for Summary Judgment
("Respondents' MSJ"), Docket Entry No. 6, p. 2. For purposes of
identi , all page numbers refer to the pagination imprinted
at the top of the page by the court's Electronic Case Filing
system.
2Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 6, p. 2.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 05, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-02694 Document 8 Filed 06/05/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

other than -as designated by the Attorney General."3 -petitioner_
remains in immigration custody.
Pending before the court is Petitioner's Habeas Petition
(Docket Entry No. 1). Petitioner argues that her detention without
a bond hearing violates due process and equal protection. 4
Petitioner also alleges an as-applied challenge.5
Also pending before the court is Respondents' Motion for
Summary Judgment ( Docket Entry No. 6). Respondents argue that
Petitioner's detention under § 1225(b)(2) does not violate due
process or equal protection because she is an applicant for
admission.6 Petitioner has filed a reply. 7
4Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 5-11 <JI<JI 22 4.
Petitioner also argues that her detention without a bond hearing
arbitrary and capricious under the Due Process Clause of the
Amendment. � at 11-13 <JI<JI 5 63. This claim will be addressed as
part of Petitioner's broader Due Process claim. See Betancourth v.
�, CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-cv-01169, 2026 WL 638482, at *l n.2
(S.D. Tex. Mar. 6, 2026). However, to the extent that Petitioner
alleges this claim under the Administrative Procedure Act, it is
foreclosed as a matter of law. Garcia v. Venegas, CIVIL ACTION NO.
l:26-CV-266, 2026 WL 1580638, at *1 n.3 (S.D. Tex. Jun. 2, 2026).
5 Habeas Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 13-14 <JI<JI 64-68.
Petitioner's as-applied challenge fails because �[s]he presents no
authority to support h[er] claim that h[er] circumstances present
a viable as-applied due process challenge" and because§ 1225(b)(2)
authorizes her continued detention. Garcia, 2026 WL 1580638, at
*2.
6Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 6, pp. 1
7 Petitioner's Reply to Respondents' Response to Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket Entry
No. 7.
-2-
Case 4:26-cv-02694 Document 8 Filed 06/05/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

Petitioner's detention without a bond hearing does not violate
substantive or procedural 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.'" at *2 (quoting Demore v.
Kim, 123 S. Ct. 1708, 1721-22 (2003)). Moreover, as explained in
Jacobo-Ventura v. Dickey, Civil Action No. H-25-6117 (S.D. Tex.
Feb. 19, 2026), because Petitioner only has those rights regarding
admission that Congress has provided by statute, and because §
1225(b) (2) mandates 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.
Moreover, Petitioner's "Fifth Amendment equal protection claim
is unavailing because [s]he s to identify a similarly situated
class that is treated more favorably than noncitizens who entered
the country without inspection, and [s]he does not state facts to
show that he fal outside of the statutory definition of an
applicant for admission under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) as interpreted by
the fth Circuit in Buenrostro-Menendez."8 Soy v. Blanche, CIVIL
8Although Petitioner argues that noncitizens who overstayed
their visas are a similarly situated class that is treated more
favorably than noncitizens who entered the country without
inspection, "Petitioner is comparing [herself] to a distinct group
of noncitizens who are in removal proceedings on entirely different
grounds." Respondents' MSJ, Docket Entry No. 5, p. 12 (explaining
that "entry into the United States without inspection is a criminal
(continued... )
-3-
Case 4:26-cv-02694 Document 8 Filed 06/05/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-02808, 2026 WL 1018345, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Apr.
15, 2026).
For the reasons explained above, Respondents' Motion for
Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 6) is GRANTED, and Petitioner's
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Docket Entry No.
1) is DENIED.
The court will enter a final judgment in favor of Respondents.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 5th day June, 2026.
-€bk
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8( ••• continued)
offense, [whi ] overstaying a sa is a civil infractionn).
-4-
Case 4:26-cv-02694 Document 8 Filed 06/05/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4