Fuentes Rodriguez v. Bondi et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 1:26-cv-00055 Document19 _ Filed 07/22/26 in TXSD Page1of2
United States District Court

Southem District of Texas
ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT July 22, 2026
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
DELMY F.R., §
“Petitioner,” §
§
v. § Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-00055
§
PAM BONDI, ef ai., §
in their official capacities, §
“Respondents,” §

ORDER

Before the Court is Petitioner’s “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C,
§ 2241” (Dkt. No. 1) (“Petition”), “Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Corpus
and/or Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment” (Dkt. No. 12) (“MTD”), the Magistrate
Judge’s “Report and Recommendation to Deny Petitioner’s Habeas Petition” (Dkt. No. 16)
(“R&R”), and “Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment” (Dkt. No. 17) (“MSJ”).

The R&R recommends that this Court (1) deny the Petition (Dkt. No. 1), (2) deny the MTD
(Dkt. No. 12} as moot, (3) deny the Motions for Default Judgment (Dkt. Nos. 13 & 15), and (4)
direct the Clerk of the Court to close the case. Dkt. No. £6 at 1-2.

Objections to the R&R were due on July 7, 2026, See Dkt. No. 16. No formal objections
were filed. Although Petitioner filed her MSJ during the objections period, see Dkt. No. 17, that
motion simply repackages arguments presented to and addressed by the Magistrate Judge. Thus,
since neither party objected to any specific factual finding or conclusion that would necessitate de
novo review, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error.! Having found no clear error, the Court
ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 16).

Turning to the MSJ, Petitioner renews her statutory and constitutional chalienges to
Respondents’ detention authority under 8 U.S.C, § 1225(b)(2)(A). Dkt. No. 17. But the Magistrate
Judge already examined Petitioner’s statutory and constitutional claims against the record,
concluding that Petitioner’s detention remains authorized by 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) under
Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494, 498 (Sth Cir. 2026) and within constitutional limits

1 When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the
record in order to accept the recommendation.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), Advisory Comm, Note (1983),

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 1:26-cv-00055 Document19 _ Filed 07/22/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2

under Demore y. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 531-532 (2003), Dkt. No. 16 at 1. Petitioner’s MSJ advances
the same theories and identifies no intervening authority, new evidence, or other basis watranting
a different result.? See generally Dkt. No. 17. Because the Court has adopted the findings and
conclusions of the R&R, and those findings and conclusions resolve the very statutory and
constitutional questions on which the MSJ seeks judgment, the Court concludes that the MS3J is
moot.

For these reasons, the Court hereby ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 16) and DENIES the
Petition (Dkt. No. 1). Further, Petitioner’s Motions for Default Judgment (Dkt. Nos. 13 & 15) is
DENIED, while Respondents’ MTD (Dkt. No. 12) and Petitioner’s MSJ (Dkt. No. 17) are
DENIED as moot. The Clerk of the Court is INSTRUCTED to close this case.

Signed on this 22" day of July 2026,

aa

Rolafido Olvera
United States District Judge

? Petitioner appears to argue that because other district courts in this circuit have granted habeas relief on constitutional
challenges to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), she is entitled to the same. Dkt. No. 17 at 5. But this Court
has consistently reviewed constitutional challenges to detention during removal proceedings against the principles
established in Demore, See, ¢.g., Gonzalez v. Warden, 1:26-cv-00399 (S.D. Tex. May 19, 2026). While this Court
reads Demore to contemplate circumstances in which detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) could approach
constitutional limits, see, e.g., Demore, 532 U.S. at 532 (Kennedy, J., concurring), Petitioner does not present any
facts or arguments—-cither before the Magistrate Judge or in her MSJ—that would raise to the level of
unconstitutionality,