Kakar v. United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Tucson

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 31 2026

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ZACHARY ARTHUR KAKAR, No. 25-5286

D.C. No. Petitioner - Appellant, 4:25-cv-00253-SHR--JR v.

MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA, TUCSON, named as United States District Court of Arizona,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Scott H. Rash, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 25, 2026**

Before: SILVERMAN, N.R. SMITH, and DE ALBA, Circuit Judges.

Zachary Arthur Kakar appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, see Alaimalo v. United States, 645 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2011), abrogated on other grounds by Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465 (2023), and we affirm.

Kakar contends that the court erred by failing to consider the merits of his claims, which were properly raised in a § 2241 petition. However, because he affirmatively represented to the court that the petition was incorrectly filed and he filed a § 2255 motion raising identical claims, the court did not err in dismissing the petition as inadvertently filed. See Hunter v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., 115 F.4th 955, 963 (9th Cir. 2024) (“[A] party ‘may not complain on review of errors below for which he is responsible.’” (quoting Sovak v. Chugai Pharm. Co., 280 F.3d 1266, 1270 (9th Cir. 2002))); see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478 (2000) (district courts “retain broad powers to prevent duplicative or unnecessary litigation”).

The request to establish custody timeline and apply jail credits is denied. AFFIRMED.

2 25-5286