Socarras Bastida v. Noem et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
ERDWIN JOSE SOCARRAS BASTIDA, 	§
§
Petitioner, 	§
§
VS. 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-00339
§
KRISTI NOEM, et al. , 	§
§
Respondents. 	§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Erdwin Jose Socarras Bastida, 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 continued detention. Doc. No. 1.
While this case was pending, the Fifth Circuit decided Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi,
--- F.4th ----, No. 25-20496, 2026 WL 323330 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026). 	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
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
March 23, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-00339 Document 6 Filed 03/23/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

The petition and attached exhibits reflect that Petitioner is a noncitizen who entered
the United States without inspection in 2021. Doc. No. 1 at 6. Petitioner contends that he
is entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), the statute permitting discretionary
bond, and that he has been erroneously categorized as a detainee subject to mandatory
detention under 8 U.S .C. § 1225(b).
Petitioner' s arguments regarding sections 1225 and 1226 and their implementing
regulations 	are 	foreclosed 	by 	Buenrostro-Mendez, 	supra. 	Likewise, his 	claim that
Respondents are act in g ultra vires fails because it rests on his assertion that he is being
detained under section 1226(a), but that, in turn, is based on an interpretation of sections
1225 and 1226 that the Fifth Circuit rejected in Buenrostro-Mende z.
In addition, Petitioner's Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause 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").
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	The petition (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED .
2. 	This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
3. 	All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT.
2 / 3
Case 4:26-cv-00339 Document 6 Filed 03/23/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3 I 3
4. 	If the Fifth Circuit, en bane, or the United States Supreme Court enters a decision
that is contrary to the decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, supra, Petitioner
is granted leave to file a motion for recons id eration or initiate a separate petition.
SO ORDERED.
SIG NE D on this 	'~	;l ~ 	day of March 20 2 6.
ANDREW S. HANEN
UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-00339 Document 6 Filed 03/23/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3