Nolazco Rodriguez v. Tate et al

UN1TED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
EMMANUEL NOLAZCO RODRIGUEZ, 	§
§
Petitioner, 	§
§
VS. 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO . 4:26-CV-05085
§
RANDY TATE, et al. , 	§
§
Respondents. 	§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Emmanuel Nolazco Rodriguez, 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. 	Doc. No. 1 at 3, 10.
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 30, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-05085 Document 4 Filed 06/30/26 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-Me ndez
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
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."). Petitioner, who alleges that he 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-05085 Document 4 Filed 06/30/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

Finally, Petitioner's equal protection claim is unavailing because he does not state
facts to show that he falls outside of the statutory definition of an applicant for admission
under 8 U.S.C. 	§ 1225(b) as interpreted by the Fifth Circuit in Buenrostro-Mendez.
Noncitizens who entered legally with a visa and overstayed are distinct from those who
entered illegally without inspection. 	See Reno v. 	Flores, 	507 U.S . 292, 306 (1993)
(rejecting equal protection claims regarding continued detention brought by alien juveniles
who did not have close relatives to serve as guardians because they were distinct from alien
juveniles with close relatives available to serve as guardians and different from American
juveniles in delinquency proceedings who were citizens). 	He does not show that the
government has violated his equal protection rights by treating him differently from those
who entered legally.
3 / 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.
~
SIGNED on this 	3 cJ 	day of June 2026.
ANDREW S. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-05085 Document 4 Filed 06/30/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3