govinfo:USCOURTS-txsd-4_26-cv-04069-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
HOUSTON DIVISION 
 
PABLO LUIS MARTINEZ 
FERRER,  
  Petitioner, 
 
 
 versus  
 
 
RAYMOND THOMPSON, 
  Respondent. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 
4:26-cv-04069 
 
 
 
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE 
 
OPINION AND ORDER ON DISMISSAL 
Petitioner Pablo Luis Martinez  Ferrer filed a petition 
for writ of habeas corpus under 28 USC §2241 on May 21, 
2026. Dkt  1. He proceeds here pro se. He acknowledges 
illegal entry into the United States on a prior date but 
nonetheless asserts that his present detention under 
8 USC §1225(b) is unlawful as a violation of his due process 
rights under the Fifth Amendment. Id at 6–7. 
A prior order noted the Fifth Circuit’s decision in 
Buenrostro-Mendez v Bondi, 166 F4th 494, 502–08 (5th Cir 
2026), which held that 8 USC §1225(b)(2)(A) subjects 
anyone present in the United States without legal 
admission to mandatory detention as an “applicant for 
admission” deemed to be “seeking admission.” See Dkt 4 
at 1–2. That order also conveyed a number of previous 
decisions by the undersigned resolving several closely 
related issues. Id at 2–6.  
Initial screening of the petition determined that the 
arguments presented raised only issues resolved in those 
decisions. But Petitioner was granted an opportunity to 
specify individual circumstances or additional arguments 
supporting a different result. Id at 6. 
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 16, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-04069     Document 7     Filed 06/16/26 in TXSD     Page 1 of 4
2 
 
Petitioner responded. Dkt s 5 & 6. He recognizes the 
decision in Buenrostro-Mendez and the prior decisions by 
the undersigned but he nevertheless contends they don’t 
apply to him because (i) he has been continuously detained 
without a bond hearing since January 2026, (ii) he hasn’t 
had any meaningful review of his detention, (iii) he has 
complied with all immigration requirements since his 
arrival, (iv) he has no criminal history and isn’t a danger to 
the community, (v) the appeal of his removal order is 
pending, and (vi) he suffers from asthma, which requires 
regular medical attention. Dkt 5 at 1–2.  
As to any statutory claim , Petitioner appears to 
disagree with the Fifth Circuit’s determination in 
Buenrostro-Mendez that individuals  like himself, present 
in the United States without legal admission , are subject 
to detention under §1225(b)(2)(A) . But the undersigned 
previously reached the same conclusion based on the plain 
language of the statute. See Montoya Cabanas v Bondi , 
2025 WL 3171331 (SD Tex) ; Herrera Naranjo v Uhls , 
2025 WL 3771447 (SD  Tex). And even if inclined to 
reconsider, the undersigned couldn’t grant Petitioner relief 
contrary to Buenrostro-Mendez because a district court “is 
bound by a circuit decision unless or until it is overturned 
by an en banc decision of the circuit court or a decision of 
the Supreme Court.” La Unión del Pueblo Entero v Abbott, 
614 F Supp 3d 509, 525 (WD Tex 2022), quoting Perez v 
Abbott, 250 F Supp 3d 123, 139 (WD Tex 2017). Petitioner’s 
disagreement with prior decisions and binding Fifth 
Circuit precedent isn’t a basis for habeas corpus relief.  
 As to the due process claims, due process arguments 
similar to those raised by Petitioner were rejected by the 
undersigned in Penafiel Clavijo v Thompson , 2026 WL 
923310 (SD Tex), which held that procedural due process 
doesn’t require an individualized custody determination 
beyond the mandate of 8 USC §1225(b)(2)(A) . The 
undersigned later found that pre-removal-order detention 
authorized by 8  USC §1225(b)(2)(A) doesn’t violate 
substantive due process while deportation proceedings are 
pending even when it exceeds the six-month period set out 
Case 4:26-cv-04069     Document 7     Filed 06/16/26 in TXSD     Page 2 of 4
3 
 
in Zadvydas v Davis, 533 US 678 (2001), as to post -
removal-order detention.  See Herrera Estrada v 
Thompson, 4:26-cv-01238 (SD Tex, April 27, 2026). Finally, 
the petition and its attachments make clear that 
Petitioner’s removal order is not yet final, so the 
presumptively constitutional six -month post -final-order 
detention period provided by Zadvydas hasn’t yet begun. 
Petitioner’s contentions concerning his compliance 
with earlier immigration orders , lack of criminal history, 
and pending appeal may bear on the question of whether 
he should ultimately be removed. But they don’t bear on 
the question of whether he may be detained during the 
pendency of such removal proceedings. As such, he hasn’t 
shown that his current detention violates his rights  under 
the Due Process Clause.  
And as to claim based on a medical issue , it isn’t 
properly raised in this habeas corpus  action. Solano-
Hurtado v Garcia , 2026 WL 916966, *3 (SD Tex): 
“Conditions-of-confinement claims improperly raised in a 
habeas corpus  petition must be dismissed for lack of 
jurisdiction.” Any such claims must instead be raised in a 
civil rights action. See Melot v Bergami, 970 F3d 596, 599 
(5th Cir 2020).  
*     *     * 
Because Petitioner hasn’t established that his 
detention violates either the Constitution or federal law, he 
isn’t entitled to relief on habeas corpus in this action.  
The petition for writ of habeas corpus  by Petitioner 
Pablo Luis Martinez-Ferrer is DENIED. Dkt 1.  
This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.  
All other pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.  
A certificate of appealability is DENIED as unnecessary.  
Final judgment will enter separately.   
The Clerk will mail this Order to Petitioner and email 
this Order to USATXS.CivilNotice@usdoj.gov to provid e 
notice of this disposition to Respondents.  
  
Case 4:26-cv-04069     Document 7     Filed 06/16/26 in TXSD     Page 3 of 4
4 
 
SO ORDERED. 
Signed on ______________ , at Houston, Texas. 
 
 
      __________________________
      Honorable Charles Eskridge 
      United States District Judge 
                                           
June 16, 2026
Case 4:26-cv-04069     Document 7     Filed 06/16/26 in TXSD     Page 4 of 4

Passage view · GavelSight