Dante Martinez-Lizalde v. Merrick Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 19, 2021
• Docket: 20-56127
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 19 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DANTE MARTINEZ-LIZALDE, No. 20-56127

Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:19-cv-02480-MCS-JPR v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney MEMORANDUM* General,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Mark C. Scarsi, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 12, 2021**

Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Dante Martinez-Lizalde appeals pro se from the district court’s order

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We review de novo, Zavala v. Ives, 785 F.3d

367, 370 (9th Cir. 2015), and we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). We lack jurisdiction to consider Martinez-Lizalde’s challenges to his

criminal convictions because these claims were not certified for appeal. See Beaty

v. Stewart, 303 F.3d 975, 984 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Courts of Appeals lack jurisdiction

to resolve the merits of any claim for which a COA is not granted.”); see also

Porter v. Adams, 244 F.3d 1006, 1007 (9th Cir. 2001) (order) (holding that a

successive § 2255 motion disguised as a § 2241 petition requires a COA). To the

extent Martinez-Lizalde seeks reconsideration of this court’s denial of a COA as to

that claim, it is denied.

To the extent Martinez-Lizalde challenges his final order of removal, the

district court did not err in determining that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the

issue. See Alvarez-Barajas v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2005)

(REAL ID Act “eliminated habeas jurisdiction, including jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 2241, over final orders of deportation, exclusion, or removal”); see

also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) (notwithstanding § 2241 or any other habeas provision,

“a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals . . . shall be the

sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of removal”).

Martinez-Lizalde fails to raise, and therefore has waived, any argument that

the district court erred in its remaining conclusions. See Jones v. Wood, 207 F.3d

2 20-56127 557, 562 n.2 (9th Cir. 2000) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s

opening brief are waived).

AFFIRMED.

3 20-56127