Angel Alejandro Carmona v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

District Court, C.D. California·Decided November 19, 2025·No. 2:25-cv-05280·Unknown

Opinion

O

ANGEL ALEJANDRO CARMONA, Case No. 2:25-cv-05280-SVW-KES

Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND v. RECOMMENDATION OF U.S.

Respondent.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Report and

Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 10) and the other

records on file herein. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those

portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections (Dkt. 12) have

been made. The Court accepts the report, findings, and recommendations of the

Magistrate Judge.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment be entered denying the

Petition with prejudice.

As a federal prisoner proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Petitioner is not

required to obtain a certificate of appealability (“COA”) in order to appeal to the

United States Court of Appeals in this case. See Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 958 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that the plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) does not require federal prisoners bringing § 2241 petitions to obtain a COA in order to appeal, unless the § 2241 petition “is merely a ‘disguised’ § 2255 petition”); see e.g., Tomlinson v. Caraway, No. 14-cv-020094-VBF-KK, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131448 at *2, 2014 WL 4656432 at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2014) (adopting report and recommendation and noting that petitioner in federal custody was not required to obtain a COA to appeal the denial of his § 2241 petition).

DATED: November 19, 2025 □□ (GEOR ll STEPHEN V. WILSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Angel Alejandro Carmona v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Angel Alejandro Carmona v. Federal Bureau of Prisons (Angel Alejandro Carmona v. Federal Bureau of Prisons) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Harrison v. Ollison
519 F.3d 952 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)