Hugo Alberto Ramos Ramos, et al. v. Raymond Thompson

Opinion

□ Southern District of Texas ENTERED April 29, 2026 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nathan Ochsner, Clerk SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

HUGO ALBERTO RAMOS RAMOS, et § al., § § Petitioners, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-03199 § RAYMOND THOMPSON, § § Respondent. § MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Petitioner Hugo Alberto Ramos Ramos is in custody of the United States Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) division, awaiting his removal from the United States. Through Next Friend Marcos Antonio Valdez, he filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.§ 2241, challenging his continued detention. Doc. No. 1. He also moves for a stay of his removal. Doc. No. 2. A review of the pleadings indicates that the petition fails to state a valid claim regarding his ongoing detention because it is premature and that the Court lacks jurisdiction to order a stay of his removal. Accordingly, the petition will be dismissed without prejudice for the reasons set forth below. I. BACKGROUND Ramos Ramos, a citizen of Mexico, alleges that his ongoing detention violates his rights. His petition and attachments thereto reflect that he has a final order of removal and

1/3

that his application for cancellation of removal was denied on April 2, 2026. Doc. No. 1- | at 5-6. Because he has a final order of removal, he is subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a). He claims that ICE took him into custody on January 19, 2026. Doc. No. 1 at 1. At the time he filed this petition, he had been detained approximately 3 months. Jd. at 1, 3. II. DISCUSSION In Zadvydas v. Davis, 121 S. Ct. 2491 (2001), the Supreme Court held that the United States Constitution does not permit indefinite detention lasting beyond six months past the removal period. Jd. at 2505. After the expiration of six months, a noncitizen detainee subject to a final removal order may seek his release from custody by demonstrating a “good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future[.]” Jd. The detainee bears the burden of proof in showing that no such likelihood of removal exists. Jd. Once this has been shown, the burden shifts to the government, which “must respond with evidence sufficient to rebut that showing.” Jd. Not every detainee subject to a final removal order in custody will be entitled to automatic release after the expiration of the six-month period under the scheme announced in Zadvydas, however. “To the contrary, a [noncitizen] may be held in confinement until it has been determined that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.” Jd. In this case, the petitioner’s pleadings show that he has been confined under his final order of removal for about 3 months. He does not plead facts to show that he has been in

2/3

custody more than six months past the expiration of the removal period, and, therefore, does not state a claim for relief under Zadvydas. 121 S. Ct. at 2505; Chance v. Napolitano, 453 F. App’x 535, 536 (Sth Cir. 2011) (unpublished op.) (holding that the district court did not err when it dismissed the petition as premature because the petitioner had not been in custody for six months past the date the removal order was entered); Okpoju v. Ridge, 115 F. App’x 302 (Sth Cir. 2004) (unpublished op.), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 2528 (2005) (same). Accordingly, the petition must be dismissed without prejudice as premature. Il. ORDER Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows: 1. Petitioner’s petition is DISMISSED without prejudice as premature. 2. Petitioner’s motion to stay removal (Doc. No. 2) is DENIED for lack of jurisdiction. 3. All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT. The Clerk will enter this Order, providing a correct copy to all parties of record. SIGNED this “2 ole of April 2026. Kv Piss | UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3/3