Leon Espinoza v. Mullin, et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JUAN DANIEL LEON ESPINOZA, 	§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
VS. 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-04285
§
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, et al., 	§
§
Respondents. 	§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Juan Daniel Leon Espinoza, 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 ofhabeas petitions on the pleadings). 1
The petition and attached exhibits reflect that Petitioner is a Mexican national who
entered the United States around 2000 without inspection and has since been placed in
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 / 3
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 24, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-04285 Document 4 Filed 06/24/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

removal proceedings. Doc. No. 1 at 5. Petitioner do es not allege or show that he has been
lawfully admitted into the United States. 	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-Me ndez 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 Buenrostr o-Mendez.
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" ).
Likewise, his claims under the Administrative Procedure Act ("AP A") fail because
an "a dequate remedy in a court" is available via habeas corpus. 	5 U.S.C. § 704; accord
Jimenez v. Noem, Civ. A. No. H-25-5853 , at Doc. No. 10 at 5 (S .D. Tex. Feb. 10 , 2026)
(holding that the petitioner was not entitled to relief under the AP A where he was able to
challenge his detention through habeas corpus); see also Trump v. JG.G. , 604 U.S. 670,
674 (2025) (Kavanaugh, J. , concurring) (agreeing with the majority "that habeas corpus,
not the AP A, is the proper vehicle" where habeas corpus is an available remedy). 	His
claims under the Suspension Clause similarly fail because petitioners like him may bring a
2 / 3
Case 4:26-cv-04285 Document 4 Filed 06/24/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

petition for habeas corpus to challenge their immigration detention. 	Petitioner does not
otherwise plead facts to show that his detention currently violates the Constitution.
Therefore, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	The petition (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED.
2. 	All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT.
Y'---
SIGNED on this 	7---1,,r 	day of June 2026.
ANDREW S. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRJCT JUDGE
3 / 3
Case 4:26-cv-04285 Document 4 Filed 06/24/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3