Ernesto Zaragosa-Solis v. M. Gutierrez

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 23 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ERNESTO ZARAGOSA-SOLIS, No. 23-15165

Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:23-cv-00011-JCH-LCK

v. MEMORANDUM* M. GUTIERREZ, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona John C. Hinderaker, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 17, 2024**

Before: WARDLAW, BADE, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Ernesto Zaragosa-Solis appeals pro se from the district court’s order

dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C § 1291. Reviewing de novo, see Stephens v.

Herrera, 464 F.3d 895, 897 (9th Cir. 2006), 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). The district court determined that Zaragosa-Solis’s § 2241 petition was

premature. We agree that, in light of his ongoing 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings in

the Southern District of Texas, Zaragosa-Solis cannot show that the § 2255 remedy

is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255(e); see also Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465, 469 (2023) (“§ 2255(e) bars a

federal prisoner from proceeding under § 2241 ‘unless . . . the [§ 2255] remedy by

motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.’”).

AFFIRMED.

2 23-15165