Morales Sanchez v. Bondi et al

UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
MAGALI MORALES SANCHEZ, 	§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
vs .
PAM BONDI, et al. ,
Respondents.
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-02135
§
§
§
§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Magali Morales Sanchez, 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 her continued detention. Doc. No. 1.
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
The petition and attached exhibits reflect that Petitioner is a noncitizen who entered
the United States without inspection in 2008. Doc. No. I at 4. Petitioner contends that she
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.
1 / 2
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 24, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-02135 Document 4 Filed 03/24/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

is entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C . § 1226(a), the statute permitting discretionary
bond, and that she has been erroneously categorized as a detainee subject to mandatory
detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). 	She also argues that due process requires a hearing
even though the statute under which the government claims she is being held mandates
detention.
Petitioner's arguments regarding sections 1225 and 1226 and their implementing
regulat io ns are foreclosed by the Fifth Circuit's recent decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v.
Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026). Likewise, 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"). 	She does not
otherwise state a claim for which habeas relief may be granted in this forum.
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 .
.t--
SIGNED on this 	?..- '-1: 	day of March,¼lL
ANDREWS. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRJCT JUDGE
2 / 2
Case 4:26-cv-02135 Document 4 Filed 03/24/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2