Acosta-Espinosa v. Blanche et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
LUIS ALBERTO ACOSTA-ESPINOSA, 	§
§
Petitioner, 	§
§
VS. 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-04982
§
TODD BLANCHE, et al. , 	§
§
Respondents. 	§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Luis Alberto Acosta-Espinosa, 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 without inspection and without lawful status in 1998. 	Doc. No. 1 at 5.
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 29, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-04982 Document 4 Filed 06/29/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

Petitioner does not plead facts to 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-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.
In addition, Petitioner's Fifth Amendment procedural due process 	claims fail
because the statute mandates detention. 	See Jennings v. Rodriquez, 583 U.S. 281 , 297
(2018) (explaining that"§§ 1225(b )(1) and 1225(b )(2) thus mandate detention of applicants
for 	admission 	until 	certain 	proceedings 	have 	concluded"). 	Likewise, 	Petitioner's
substantive 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
pennissible 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." ). Petitioner, who has been detained less than one month, does
not plead facts that show that he has been detained indefinitely or otherwise show that his
detention presently violates the Constitution.
2 / 3
Case 4:26-cv-04982 Document 4 Filed 06/29/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

Therefore, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	This petition (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. 	All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT.
K
SIGNED on this 	/'-?i 	day of Jun e 2026.
GklhANDREWS. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT ITJDGE
3 / 3
Case 4:26-cv-04982 Document 4 Filed 06/29/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3