(HC)Young v. Hill

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ZURI SANA-KABISA YOUNG, ) No.: 1:24-cv-01264-KES-HBK (HC) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. ) PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS ) WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND DIRECTING 14 BRIAN CATES, Warden, ) CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE ) 15 Respondent. ) Docs. 1, 21, 24 ) 16 ) 17 Petitioner Zuri Sana-Kabisa Young is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for 18 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Doc. 1. The matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On November 8, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge screened the original petition and 21 determined that it was not legibly handwritten. Doc. 7. The assigned magistrate judge dismissed 22 the petition with leave to amend. See id. at 3. 23 Petitioner filed a first amended petition on December 9, 2024. Doc. 9. The assigned 24 magistrate judge screened the first amended petition and determined that it failed to specify all 25 grounds for relief in violation of Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Id. at 3. 26 The assigned magistrate judge thus dismissed the first amended petition with leave to amend. Id. 27 Petitioner filed a second amended petition on January 30, 2025. Doc. 13. On April 24, 28 1 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the 2 petition be dismissed without prejudice because it is a “mixed” petition containing both exhausted 3 and unexhausted claims. Doc. 24. In the findings and recommendations, the magistrate judge 4 informed petitioner that he could, within the time for filing objections, file a request to proceed 5 only on his unexhausted claim or file a motion to stay and hold the petition in abeyance pending 6 his exhaustion of state remedies. Id. at 6. Those findings and recommendations were served 7 upon all parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen 8 (14) days after service. Petitioner has not filed objections, a motion to stay, or a request to 9 proceed only on his exhausted claim, and the deadline to do so has expired. 10 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de 11 novo review of the case. The Court notes that, because the parties have not consented to 12 magistrate judge jurisdiction, the assigned magistrate judge was without jurisdiction to dismiss 13 claims in petitioner’s original petition and first amended petition. Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 14 500, 505 (9th Cir. 2017); Fegan v. Cavagnolo, No. 24-6849, 2025 WL 1728683 (9th Cir. 2025) 15 (“[W]ithout the consent of the parties, [a] magistrate judge [does] not have the authority to 16 dismiss any claims [in a habeas petition].”). Nevertheless, because both the original petition and 17 the first amended petition, like the second amended petition, contained both exhausted and 18 unexhausted claims, those petitions should have been dismissed for the same reasons stated in the 19 April 24, 2025 findings and recommendations. Thus, having carefully reviewed the entire file, 20 the Court concludes that the analysis in the findings and recommendations, as applied to the 21 petition both in its initial version and as amended, is supported by the record and proper analysis. 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Accordingly, 2 1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 24, 2025, Doc. 21, are adopted 3 as set forth above; 4 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed without prejudice; 5 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate any pending deadlines/motions and to 6 close this case. 4 8 g | SO ORDERED. _ 10 Dated: _ July 27, 2025 4h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28