David Reinaldo Zamora v. Ricocol

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: May 5, 2025
• Docket: 5:25-cv-00568
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 DAVID REINALDO ZAMORA, Case No. 5:25-cv-00568-KK-KES

12 Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATION OF U.S.

14 RICOCOL, Warden, MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15 Respondent.

18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition (Dkt. 1), the

19 other records on file herein, and the Report and Recommendation of the United

20 States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 5). No objections to the Report and

21 Recommendation were filed, and the deadline for filing such objections has passed.

22 The Court accepts the report, findings, and recommendations of the Magistrate

23 Judge.

24 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment be entered dismissing the

25 Petition with prejudice because it fails to state a non-frivolous claim for federal

26 habeas relief.

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

28 1 | required to obtain a certificate of appealability (“COA”) in order to appeal to the 2 | United States Court of Appeals in this case. See Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 3 | 958 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that the plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) does 4 | not require federal prisoners bringing § 2241 petitions to obtain a COA in order to 5 | appeal, unless the § 2241 petition “is merely a ‘disguised’ § 2255 petition’); see 6 | e.g., Tomlinson v. Caraway, No. 14-cv-020094-VBF-KK, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7 | 131448 at *2, 2014 WL 4656432 at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2014) (adopting report 8 || and recommendation and noting that petitioner in federal custody was not required 9 | to obtain a COA to appeal the denial of his § 2241 petition). 10 | bun KW 11 | DATED; _May 5. 2025 12 KENLY KIYA KATO 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28