Petersen v. Flood

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 JERRY DEAN PETERSEN, CASE NO. C24-0206JLR 11 Petitioner, ORDER v. 12 JOHN FLOOD, 13 Respondent. 14

15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 Before the court is United States Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke’s report and 17 recommendation, in which she recommends that the court dismiss Petitioner Jerry Dean 18 Petersen’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus without prejudice. (R&R 19 (Dkt. # 18); see also Petition (Dkt. # 10).) Neither Mr. Petersen nor Respondent John 20 Flood filed objections to the report and recommendation before the November 6, 2024 21 deadline. (See id. at 4-5 (setting deadline); see generally Dkt.) Having reviewed the 22 report and recommendation, the parties’ submissions, the relevant portions of the record, 1 and the governing law, court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Fricke’s report and 2 recommendation, DISMISSES Mr. Petersen’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, and

3 DENIES a certificate of appealability. 4 II. ANALYSIS 5 A district court has jurisdiction to review a magistrate judge’s report and 6 recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “A judge of the court 7 may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made 8 by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). “The statute makes it clear that the

9 district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo 10 if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 11 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). 12 Magistrate Judge Fricke recommends that the court abstain from deciding the 13 petition under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), because (1) Mr. Petersen faces an

14 ongoing state criminal prosecution which clearly implicates important state interests; 15 (2) Mr. Petersen can raise constitutional challenges by filing motions in state court; and 16 (3) the requested habeas relief would undermine the state court’s determinations 17 regarding Mr. Petersen’s criminal case. (R&R at 2-3.) Mr. Petersen has not objected to 18 that recommendation. (See generally Dkt.) The court has thoroughly examined the

19 record before it and finds Magistrate Judge Fricke’s reasoning persuasive in light of that 20 record. The court has also independently reviewed Mr. Petersen’s petition and agrees 21 with the reasoning and conclusions set forth in the report and recommendation. 22 1 Accordingly, the court ADOPTS the report and recommendation, DISMISSES Mr. 2 Petersen’s habeas corpus petition, and DENIES a certificate of appealability.

3 III. CONCLUSION 4 For the foregoing reasons, the court ORDERS as follows: 5 1. The court ADOPTS the report and recommendation (Dkt. # 18) in its entirety; 6 2. The court DISMISSES Mr. Petersen’s habeas corpus petition (Dkt. # 10) 7 without prejudice; 8 3. The court DENIES issuance of a certificate of appealability for the reasons set

9 forth in the report and recommendation; and 10 4. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send copies of this order to Mr. Petersen, Mr. 11 Flood, and Magistrate Judge Fricke. 12 Dated this 11th day of November, 2024. 13 A 14 15 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22