Montes v. Mullin et al

MARIO MONTES,
Petitioner,
VS.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
§
§
§
§
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO . 4:26-CV-04610
§
MARKWA YNE MULLIN, et al., 	§
§
Respondents. 	§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The petitioner, Mario Montes, 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 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 Mexican national who
entered the United States without inspection and without lawful status in 2000. 	Doc. No.
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/ 3
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 12, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-04610 Document 4 Filed 06/12/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

1 at 5; Doc. No. 1-2 at 1. Petitioner does not plead facts to show that he has been lawfully
admitted into the United States. Because Petitioner entered without inspection and has not
obtained lawful status, he is an applicant for admission subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
See Bu en rostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494, 498 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026). 	Therefore,
to the extent he argues that he should receive a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and
its 	implementing regulations, that 	claim 	is 	foreclosed 	by 	Buenrostro-Mendez . 	His
detention is mandated by statute under section 1225(b )(2).
In addition, Petitioner 's Fifth Amendment due process claims fail. 	Petitioner 's
procedural due process claim is unavailing because the statute mandates detention. 	See
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"). 	Hence, a bond hearing to determine whether he is a danger to the
community or a flight risk is futile where it would have no bearing on his mandatory
detention.
Likewise, Petitioner 's substantive due process claim is 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, 	583 	U.S. 	at 297; 	Carlson v. Landon, 342 U.S. 	524, 538 (1952)
("Detention is necessary a part of th[e] deportation procedure."); Wong Wing v. United
States, 163 U.S. 228, 235 (1896) ("Proceedings to exclude or expel would be vain if those
accused could not be held in custody pending the inquiry into their true character, and while
2 / 3
Case 4:26-cv-04610 Document 4 Filed 06/12/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

arrangements were being made for their deportation. "). Petitioner does not plead facts that
show that he has been detained indefinitely or otherwise show that his detention presently
violates the Constitution.
Therefore, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	This petition (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. 	All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT.
-r--SIGNED this 	l -:t_ 	day of June 2026.
ANDREWS. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRJCT JUDGE
3 / 3
Case 4:26-cv-04610 Document 4 Filed 06/12/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3