Cisneros Cervantes v. Blanche et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
RAMON CISNEROS CERVANTES, 	§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
VS .
TODD BLANCHE, et al.,
Respondents.
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-02723
§
§
§
§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Ramon Cisneros Cervantes, is a detainee in the custody of United
States Department ofHomeland 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 without lawful status in 2002 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 l(b) , Rules Governing§ 2254 Cases in the
United States District Courts.
1 I 3
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 24, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-02723 Document 4 Filed 04/24/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

proceedings. Doc. No. 1. Petitioner does not plead facts to show that he has been lawfully
admitted into the United States, and he does not so contend. 	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). His arguments regarding bond hearings under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)
and its implementing regulations are foreclosed by Buenrostro-Mendez. 	His detention is
mandated by statute under section 1225(b)(2).
In addition, Petitioner' s Fifth Amendment due process claims are 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 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").
Finally, to the extent that he contends that his arrest and detention is unconstitutional
based on the Fourth Amendment, those claims cannot succeed in this habeas proceeding
because § 1225(b) provides Respondents' lawful authority to detain the petitioner. 	See
Kanda v. Cole, 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)).
2 / 3
Case 4:26-cv-02723 Document 4 Filed 04/24/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

Therefore, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	The petition (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. 	All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT.
4-\"-
SIGNED this 	~ 	day of April 2026.
ANDREWS. HANEN
UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3 / 3
Case 4:26-cv-02723 Document 4 Filed 04/24/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3