Colin Colin v. TATE et al

JESUS COLIN COLIN,
Petitioner,
VS.
RANDY TATE, et al. ,
Respondents.
UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
§
§
§
§
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO . 4:26-CV-00741
§
§
§
§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Jesus Colin Colin, is a detainee in the custody of United States
Department of Homeland 	Security, Immigration 	and 	Customs 	Enforcement 	("ICE")
officials at the Montgomery Processing Center in Conroe, Texas. 	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
1 / 3
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
February 27, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-00741 Document 10 Filed 02/27/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

§ 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 in 1994 and has been charged with being an alien
present in the United States who has not been admitted or paroled. 	Doc. No . 1-2 at 25.
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-Mende z, supra. 	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) ("Read most naturally, §§ 1225(b)(l) and (b)(2)
thus 	mandate 	detention 	of applicants 	for 	admission 	until 	certain proceedings 	have
concluded .... And neither§ 1225(b)(l) nor§ 1225(b)(2) says anything whatsoever about
bond hearings.").
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	The petition (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED.
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.
2 / 3
Case 4:26-cv-00741 Document 10 Filed 02/27/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3 / 3
2. 	This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
3. 	All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT.
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 reconsideration or initiate a separate petition.
SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this
~
~//; 	day of February 2026.
ANDREW S. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-00741 Document 10 Filed 02/27/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3