Elias Moises Lopez Diaz v. Grant Dickey, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed without prejudice a detainee's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging his continued immigration detention. The court held that the petitioner's arguments concerning detention under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225 and 1226, as well as related Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims, were foreclosed by Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi and Demore v. Kim. The court denied the petition and other pending motions as moot, while granting leave to seek reconsideration or file a separate petition if controlling precedent changes.

Holdings

1. The petitioner's arguments that he was not seeking admission and was entitled to discretionary bond under § 1226(a) were foreclosed by Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi; the petition did not establish entitlement to habeas relief.
2. The petitioner's Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims challenging detention under the allegedly wrong statutory authority were foreclosed by Buenrostro-Mendez and did not warrant habeas relief.
3. The petitioner's due-process challenge to detention during removal proceedings was precluded at this juncture because detention during removal proceedings is constitutionally permissible.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to discretionary bond consideration under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) rather than mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b).
2. Whether the petitioner's statutory classification and detention claims were foreclosed by Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi.
3. Whether the petitioner's Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims regarding detention under the allegedly wrong statutory authority stated a basis for habeas relief.
4. Whether detention during removal proceedings violated the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause at this stage.

Disposition

dismissed