Dorante v. Dickey et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JONATHAN XAVIER DORANTE, 	§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
VS.
GRANT DICKEY, et al.,
Respondents.
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-00936
§
§
§
§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Jonathan Xavier Dorante, is a detainee in the custody of United
States Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE")
officials at the Joe Corley Processing Center in Conroe, Texas. Through counsel, petitioner
filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging petitioner's
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 l(b), Rules Governing§ 2254 Cases in the
1/ 3
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 03, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-00936 Document 4 Filed 03/03/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

The petition reflects that Petitioner is a noncitizen who entered the United States in
2023, was apprehended on January 27, 2026 at a traffic stop, and is considered to be an
"applicant for admission" by ICE. Doc. No. 1 at 2-3. Petitioner contends that, because he
was already present in the United States at the time of his arrest, he was not "seeking
admission" and that he is entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), the statute
permitting discretionary bond. 	He argues 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 	Fourth
Amendment claim that he is being held contrary to statutory authority fails because it rests
on his assertion that he is being detained under section 1226(a), but that, in tum, is based
on an interpretation of sections 1225 and 1226 that the Fifth Circuit rejected in Buenrostro-
Mendez. He pleads no facts to show that his initial arrest, in connection with a traffic stop,
was contrary to law or that he has been admitted into this country legally after inspection.
In addition, Petitioner 's Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause claims are precluded,
at this juncture, by D em ore 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").
United States District Courts.
2 / 3
Case 4:26-cv-00936 Document 4 Filed 03/03/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3 I 3
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.
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 on this
,ch.3 	day of March 2026 .
/~bl~ANDREWS . HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-00936 Document 4 Filed 03/03/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3