Ramon Cisneros Cervantes v. Todd Blanche, et al.

Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ee SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS ee HOUSTON DIVISION RAMON CISNEROS CERVANTES, § § Petitioner, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-02723 § TODD BLANCHE, et al., § § Respondents. § ORDER OF DISMISSAL The petitioner, Ramon Cisneros Cervantes, 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 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 and attached exhibits reflect that Petitioner is a noncitizen who entered the United States without lawful status in 2002 and has since been placed in removal 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.

1/3 proceedings. Doc. No. 1. Petitioner does not plead facts to show that he has been lawfully admitted into the United States, and he does not so contend. 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). His arguments regarding bond hearings under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations are foreclosed by Buenrostro-Mendez. His detention is mandated by statute under section 1225(b)(2).

In addition, Petitioner’s Fifth Amendment due process 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.” /d. (citations omitted); see also Jennings v. Rodriquez, 583 U.S. 281, 297 (2018) (explaining that “*8$§1225(b)(1) and 1225(b)(2) thus mandate detention of applicants for admission until certain proceedings have concluded”).

Finally, to the extent that he contends that his arrest and detention is unconstitutional based on the Fourth Amendment, those claims cannot succeed in this habeas proceeding because § 1225(b) provides Respondents’ lawful authority to detain the petitioner. See Kanda v. Cole, No. 5:26-CV-158, 2026 WL 1014400, at *3—4 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 10, 2026) (rejecting petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claims regarding arrest and detention) (citing Ordonez v. Frink, No. 4:25-CV-06386, 2026 WL 143153, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 20, 2026)).

2/3 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. ato SIGNED this □ day of April 2026.

DA ANDREW S. HANEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3/3