Ernesto Zaragosa-Solis v. M. Gutierrez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 23 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ERNESTO ZARAGOSA-SOLIS, No. 23-15165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