July 29, 2026 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nathan Ochsner, Clerk SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
ADONIS CEBALLO RUBIO, § Petitioner, § § v. § Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-672 § WARDEN, in his/her official capacity, § El Valle Detention Center, § Respondent. §
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Petitioner Adonis Ceballo Rubio’s “Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241” (Rubio’s “§ 2241 Petition”). Dkt. No. 1. For the reasons discussed below, it is recommended that the Court: (1) DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Rubio’s § 2241 Petition; and (2) DIRECT the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 On December 12, 2025, Rubio, a citizen of Cuba, was taken into immigration custody. Dkt. No. 1 at 4. On February 4, 2026, an immigration judge ordered Rubio’s removal. Automated Case Information, EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW, (last visited June 17, 2026), https://acis.eoir.justice.gov/en/ (search “A-Number” field as “240318268” and “Nationality” field as “Cuba”). On February 13, 2026, Rubio appealed the removal order to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”); the appeal remains
1 Information obtained from Rubio’s § 2241 Petition. See Dkt. No. 1. pending. Id.; Dkt. No. 1 at 4–5. Rubio is currently detained at the El Valle Detention Facility (“El Valle”) in Raymondville, Texas. Dkt. No. 1 at 1. On June 15, 2026, Rubio, proceeding pro se, filed his § 2241 Petition. Id.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
A. Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Standing and Ripeness “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Federal courts presume that any given case lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the party seeking to invoke jurisdiction has the burden of showing otherwise. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377; Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Hillman, 796 F.2d 770, 775 (5th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, federal courts have an independent obligation to examine their own subject matter jurisdiction, even sua sponte. Rivero v. Fid. Invs., Inc., 1 F.4th 340, 344 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S.Ct. 1670 (2022) (quoting Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006)). The United States Constitution limits federal jurisdiction to the resolution of
“cases” and “controversies.” Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 559 (1992); U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. Standing is an “essential and unchanging part” of the Constitution’s case-or-controversy requirement. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 559. Standing requires, in part, an “actual or imminent” injury, i.e., one that is “ripe for decision.” Id. at 560; Shields v. Norton, 289 F.3d 832, 835 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied sub nom. Schuehle v. Norton, 537 U.S. 1071 (2002). For a claim to be ripe, it must have “matured sufficiently to warrant judicial intervention.” Contender Farms, L.L.P. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 779 F.3d 258, 267 (5th Cir. 2015) (internal quotations omitted). A premature claim for relief is not judicially ripe and falls outside the federal courts’ limited jurisdiction. Shields, 289 F.3d at 835; see also Sample v. Morrison, 406 F.3d 310, 312 (5th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (noting that standing and ripeness are “essential components of federal subject-matter jurisdiction.”). Without subject matter jurisdiction, federal courts have no authority to adjudicate
a case and must dismiss it. Goodrich v. United States, 3 F.4th 776, 779 (5th Cir. 2021); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is without prejudice. Carver v. Atwood, 18 F.4th 494, 498 (5th Cir. 2021). B. Zadvydas v. Davis Immigration judges are authorized to issue orders of removal, which become final once the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) has acted or the time to seek review of a removal order expires. See generally 8 C.F.R. § 1241.1; Texas v. United States, 524 F. Supp. 3d 598, 614 (S.D. Tex. 2021) (Tipton, J.). Generally, the Government has 90 days to execute a final removal order and remove the unauthorized immigrant from the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A). Though § 2241 proceedings “remain available as a forum for statutory and
constitutional challenges to post-removal-period detention,” the detainee’s ability to seek habeas relief is subject to certain time constraints. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 688. When the Government fails to execute a removal order within the 90-day period, post-removal detention must be limited to a period “reasonably necessary” to effectuate removal; indefinite detention is impermissible. Id. at 689. This does not mean that any amount of post-removal-period of confinement is unlawful; rather, the Government’s obligation to rebut a presumption of indefinite detention does not activate until after detention has been ongoing longer than six months, and only after the immigrant detainee first makes a showing that “there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.” Id. at 701. Up to six months of immigration detention after entry of a final removal order is, therefore, “presumptively reasonable.” Id.; Chance v. Napolitano, 453 F. App'x 535, 536 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam).
In arriving at the six-month presumption, the United States Supreme Court acknowledged the sensitive interplay of separation of powers concerns and national interests in the immigration context. See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 700. The six-month presumption, then, reflects a reasoned judgment that earlier review of post-removal- period detention poses too great a risk to institutional interests to properly warrant judicial scrutiny. C. Pro Se Filings A pleading by a pro se litigant is liberally construed under a less stringent standard of review than a formal pleading drafted by a lawyer. Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94 (2007). Nevertheless, a pro se filing must still “abide by the rules that govern the federal courts.” E.E.O.C. v. Simbaki, Ltd., 767 F.3d 475, 484 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting Frazier v. Wells
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
July 29, 2026 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nathan Ochsner, Clerk SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
ADONIS CEBALLO RUBIO, § Petitioner, § § v. § Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-672 § WARDEN, in his/her official capacity, § El Valle Detention Center, § Respondent. §
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Petitioner Adonis Ceballo Rubio’s “Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241” (Rubio’s “§ 2241 Petition”). Dkt. No. 1. For the reasons discussed below, it is recommended that the Court: (1) DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Rubio’s § 2241 Petition; and (2) DIRECT the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 On December 12, 2025, Rubio, a citizen of Cuba, was taken into immigration custody. Dkt. No. 1 at 4. On February 4, 2026, an immigration judge ordered Rubio’s removal. Automated Case Information, EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW, (last visited June 17, 2026), https://acis.eoir.justice.gov/en/ (search “A-Number” field as “240318268” and “Nationality” field as “Cuba”). On February 13, 2026, Rubio appealed the removal order to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”); the appeal remains
1 Information obtained from Rubio’s § 2241 Petition. See Dkt. No. 1. pending. Id.; Dkt. No. 1 at 4–5. Rubio is currently detained at the El Valle Detention Facility (“El Valle”) in Raymondville, Texas. Dkt. No. 1 at 1. On June 15, 2026, Rubio, proceeding pro se, filed his § 2241 Petition. Id.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
A. Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Standing and Ripeness “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Federal courts presume that any given case lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the party seeking to invoke jurisdiction has the burden of showing otherwise. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377; Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Hillman, 796 F.2d 770, 775 (5th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, federal courts have an independent obligation to examine their own subject matter jurisdiction, even sua sponte. Rivero v. Fid. Invs., Inc., 1 F.4th 340, 344 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S.Ct. 1670 (2022) (quoting Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006)). The United States Constitution limits federal jurisdiction to the resolution of
“cases” and “controversies.” Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 559 (1992); U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. Standing is an “essential and unchanging part” of the Constitution’s case-or-controversy requirement. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 559. Standing requires, in part, an “actual or imminent” injury, i.e., one that is “ripe for decision.” Id. at 560; Shields v. Norton, 289 F.3d 832, 835 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied sub nom. Schuehle v. Norton, 537 U.S. 1071 (2002). For a claim to be ripe, it must have “matured sufficiently to warrant judicial intervention.” Contender Farms, L.L.P. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 779 F.3d 258, 267 (5th Cir. 2015) (internal quotations omitted). A premature claim for relief is not judicially ripe and falls outside the federal courts’ limited jurisdiction. Shields, 289 F.3d at 835; see also Sample v. Morrison, 406 F.3d 310, 312 (5th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (noting that standing and ripeness are “essential components of federal subject-matter jurisdiction.”). Without subject matter jurisdiction, federal courts have no authority to adjudicate
a case and must dismiss it. Goodrich v. United States, 3 F.4th 776, 779 (5th Cir. 2021); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is without prejudice. Carver v. Atwood, 18 F.4th 494, 498 (5th Cir. 2021). B. Zadvydas v. Davis Immigration judges are authorized to issue orders of removal, which become final once the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) has acted or the time to seek review of a removal order expires. See generally 8 C.F.R. § 1241.1; Texas v. United States, 524 F. Supp. 3d 598, 614 (S.D. Tex. 2021) (Tipton, J.). Generally, the Government has 90 days to execute a final removal order and remove the unauthorized immigrant from the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A). Though § 2241 proceedings “remain available as a forum for statutory and
constitutional challenges to post-removal-period detention,” the detainee’s ability to seek habeas relief is subject to certain time constraints. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 688. When the Government fails to execute a removal order within the 90-day period, post-removal detention must be limited to a period “reasonably necessary” to effectuate removal; indefinite detention is impermissible. Id. at 689. This does not mean that any amount of post-removal-period of confinement is unlawful; rather, the Government’s obligation to rebut a presumption of indefinite detention does not activate until after detention has been ongoing longer than six months, and only after the immigrant detainee first makes a showing that “there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.” Id. at 701. Up to six months of immigration detention after entry of a final removal order is, therefore, “presumptively reasonable.” Id.; Chance v. Napolitano, 453 F. App'x 535, 536 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam).
In arriving at the six-month presumption, the United States Supreme Court acknowledged the sensitive interplay of separation of powers concerns and national interests in the immigration context. See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 700. The six-month presumption, then, reflects a reasoned judgment that earlier review of post-removal- period detention poses too great a risk to institutional interests to properly warrant judicial scrutiny. C. Pro Se Filings A pleading by a pro se litigant is liberally construed under a less stringent standard of review than a formal pleading drafted by a lawyer. Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94 (2007). Nevertheless, a pro se filing must still “abide by the rules that govern the federal courts.” E.E.O.C. v. Simbaki, Ltd., 767 F.3d 475, 484 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting Frazier v. Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A., 541 Fed.Appx. 419, 421 (5th Cir. 2013)). The Court need not develop the plaintiff’s argument on his own behalf. See United States v. Pineda, 988 F.2d 22, 23 (5th Cir. 1993). III. DISCUSSION Rubio alleges that his detention is “illegal” and that he has “been in ICE custody for more than 180 days.” Dkt. No. 1 at 6–7. The Court, then, liberally construes Rubio’s claim for relief under Zadvydas. Id.; E.E.O.C., 767 F.3d at 484. However, as he admits in his § 2241 Petition, Rubio has an appeal pending decision with the BIA. Dkt. No. 1 at
5; Automated Case Information, EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW, (last visited June 17, 2026), https://acis.eoir.justice.gov/en/. Accordingly, Rubio is not subject to a final order of removal and his § 2241 Petition [Dkt. No. 1] is unripe. 8 C.F.R. § 1241.1(a) (an order of removal becomes final once the BIA has acted upon it); 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(i)(B)(i) (“The removal period begins … [t]he date the order of removal becomes administratively final.”); Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 688 (stating that the post-removal-period detention statute applies only after a noncitizen has been ordered removed). As a result, judicial intervention at this stage is premature and, for the reasons explained in Zadvydas, would be imprudent considering the Executive branch’s primary prerogative over the administration of immigrant removal. See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 700. Accordingly, Rubio’s claim is not ripe and is subject to dismissal for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.
IV. RECOMMENDATION For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Court: (1) DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Rubio’s § 2241 Petition [Dkt. No. 1]; and (2) DIRECT the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case. V. NOTICE TO PARTIES A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation within fourteen days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, provided that the party has been served with notice that such consequences will result from a failure to object. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Assn, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. Clv. P. 72(b).
SIGNED on this 29th day of July, 2026 at Brownsville, Texas. wef. United Stat¢s Magistrate Judge
6/6