Purbuev v. Pitts et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
ALEKSEI P., 1 	§
Petitioner, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:26-cv-458
§
MICHAEL J. PITTS, et al., 	§
in their official capacities, 	§
Respondents. 	§
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TO DENY PETITIONER’S HABEAS PETITION
Before the Court is Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Dkt.
No. 1). 	Petitioner requests the Court order Respondents to release him from immigration
detention, claiming it is prolonged without an individualized custody review. Dkt. No. 7 at
2. The Government responded with a Motion for Summary Judgement asking the Court to
continue detention as mandatory. 	Dkt. No. 6. 	Because Petitioner is subject to mandatory
detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) and Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494,
498 (5th Cir. 2026), it is recommended the Court deny the Petition.
Petitioner is a Russian national, currently detained by Immigration and Customs
Enforcement at the Port Isaabel Detention Facility in Los Fresnos, Texas. Dkt. No. 7 at 2.
Petitioner was paroled into the United States of November 6, 2021, and after his parole
lapsed, he was served with a Notice to Appear in Immigration Court in October of 2025. Id.
There, the Immigration Judge denied him relief on February 2, 2026, and order him removed
to Russia. Id. Petitioner appealed this ruling to the Board of Immigration Appeals and that
appeal remains pending. Id.
Petitioner challenges his current detention by immigration authorities “on one narrow
1 Due to significant privacy concerns in immigration cases and noting that judicial opinions are not subject
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2, any opinion, order, judgment, or other disposition in this case will
refer to the petitioner only by first name and last initial.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 28, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 1:26-cv-00458 Document 9 Filed 07/28/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
ground: 	as applied to him, on these facts, § 1225(b)(2)(A) violates the Fifth Amendment
because it subjects him to prolonged civil detention without any individualized custody
determination.” Dkt. No. 7 at 2. In support of his claim, Petitioner alleges he is forty-one
years of age and has lived in Tomball, Texas since 2021 with his spouse and child, has no
criminal record, no history of immigration violations (other than his unlawful entry in 2021)
and was arrested on September 23, 2025, during a routine immigration check-in. Dkt. No. 1
at 3.
Petitioner’s challenges to the statutory authority under which he is detained fails,
because Petitioner is detainable under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi,
166 F.4th 494, 498 (5th Cir. 2026). Second, Petitioner’s challenges to his detention while his
immigration proceedings are pending fails, because detention “during removal proceedings,”
even where such detention is without a bond hearing, is generally a “constitutionally
permissible part of that process.” Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 531 (2003).
It is therefore recommended that the Court:
(1) DENY the Petition (Dkt. No. 1),
(2) GRANT Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 6)
(3) DIRECT the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The parties have fourteen (14) days from the date of being served with a copy of this
Report and Recommendation in which to file written objections, if any, with the United
States District Judge assigned to the instant case. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When filing an
objection, a party must object to specific facts or legal findings in this Report and
Recommendation. The District Judge is not required to consider frivolous, conclusive, or
general objections. Battle v. United States Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir.
1987).
If any party fails to timely object to any factual or legal findings in this Report and
Recommendation, the District Judge is not required to conduct a de novo review of the record
before adopting these findings. If the District Judge chooses to adopt such findings without
conducting a de novo review of the record, the parties may not attack those findings on
appeal, except on the grounds of plain error. Alexander v. Verizon Wireless Servs., L.L.C.,
Case 1:26-cv-00458 Document 9 Filed 07/28/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
875 F.3d 243, 248 (5th Cir. 2017).
Signed on July 28, 2026.
Karen Betancourt
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00458 Document 9 Filed 07/28/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3