Elmer J. Martinez Murillo v. Raymond Thompson, et al.

Southern District of Texas ENTERED March 31, 2026 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nathan Ochsner, Clerk SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ELMER J. MARTINEZ MURILLO, § § Petitioner, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-02327 § RAYMOND THOMPSON, ef al., § § Respondents. § ORDER OF DISMISSAL The petitioner, Elmer J. Martinez Murillo, 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. Nos. 1, 1-1.

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 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (authorizing preliminary review and summary dismissal of habeas petitions on the pleadings). !

The petition reflects that Petitioner is a noncitizen who entered the United States without inspection in 2022. Doc. No. I-1 at 9. Petitioner does not plead facts to show that 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.

1/2 he has been lawfully admitted into the United States, and he does not so contend. He has been detained for less than a month to date.

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 Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494, 498 (Sth Cir. Feb. 6, 2026). Thus, his detention is mandated by statute. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Fifth Amendment due process claims are precluded, at this juncture, by Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 531 (2003), because “[d]Jetention during removal proceedings is a constitutionally permissible part of that process.” /d. (citations omitted); see also Jennings v. Rodriquez, 583 U.S. 281, 297 (2018) (explaining that “$§1225(b)(1) and 1225(b)(2) thus mandate detention of applicants for admission until certain proceedings have concluded”).

Therefore, the Court ORDERS as follows: 1. The petition (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.

2. All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT.

SIGNED this 3! of March 2026.

ANDREWS.HANEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2/2