(HC) Woosley v. Borla

Opinion

AARON MICHAEL WOOSLEY, No. 2:25-cv-0946-DJC-CSK P Petitioner, v. ORDER Respondent. Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On May 7, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations herein which were served on Petitioner and which contained notice to Petitioner that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 14.) Petitioner filed a “Motion for Reconsideration” of the Magistrate Judge’s unadopted Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 15) However, as the Court has not yet adopted the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations, reconsideration is inappropriate. Instead, the Court will consider Petitioner’s filing as objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations. The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The Magistrate Judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. In Petitioner's objections, he notes that his direct appeal concluded on May 23, 2024, when the California appeals court affirmed his conviction. (ECF No. 15 at 3.) The subsequent termination of state court proceedings does not alter the Court's application of the Younger abstention doctrine. Whether the Court must abstain under Younger is determined by whether state Court proceedings were ongoing at the time the federal action is filed. See Beltran v. State of California, 871 F.2d 777, 782 (9th Cir. 1988). Where, as here, state court proceedings were ongoing at the time of filing, the district court is required by Younger abstention to dismiss the action, even if the state court proceedings are later completed. See id. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued May 7, 2025 (ECF No. 14) are adopted in full; 2. This action is dismissed; 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case; and 3. The Court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 2253 as Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ July 8, 2025 “Daniel CoD batt Hon. Daniel Lt Cod UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/woos25v0946.800.hc