1 2 3

4 5 6

7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 ) Case No. 2:22-cv-03324-JAK (SP) 11 PAULINE HUNTER, ) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ) 13 v. ) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS ALEX VILLANUEVA, Sheriff, ) AND RECOMMENDATION OF 14 ) UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE Respondent. ) JUDGE 15 ) ) 16 _____________________________ )

17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, records on file, 18 and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Further, the 19 Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which petitioner 20 has objected. The Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate 21 Judge. 22 For clarity, the Court notes that, even recognizing the Petition as having been 23 brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 rather than 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Petitioner still was 24 required to exhaust judicial remedies unless she established a basis for the Court to waive 25 the requirement, which she has not. See Acevedo-Carranza v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 539, 26 541 (9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the Petition must be dismissed for Petitioner’s failure 27 to exhaust. 28 1 In addition, Petitioner’s third ground for relief in the Petition, alleging that she was 2 subjected to excessive bail, likely is not barred by Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). 3 See Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 766 (9th Cir. 2018) (finding claim regarding 4 entitlement to a constitutional bail hearing is not barred under Younger abstention). Yet, 5 not only is the claim subject to dismissal for Petitioner’s failure to exhaust, cf. id. at 765 6 (in case finding claim regarding bail hearing is not subject to Younger abstention, 7 petitioner still exhausted state court remedies before filing § 2241 petition in federal 8 court), but the claim is moot because Petitioner no longer is in custody. Cf. Murphy v. 9 Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1982) (claim regarding pretrial bail was mooted by petitioner’s 10 conviction because “even a favorable decision on [on the claim] would not have entitled 11 [the petitioner] to bail”). 12 Moreover, in her Objections to the Report and Recommendation, Petitioner seeks 13 leave to amend her petition to name a different respondent. ECF No. 13 at 3, 6. The 14 Court will not give Petitioner leave to amend because it would be futile. Even if 15 Petitioner were permitted to name a different respondent, this action would remain 16 subject to dismissal for the reasons stated here and in the Report and Recommendation. 17 See Murray v. Schriro, 745 F.3d 984, 1015 (9th Cir. 2014) (“A determination of futility 18 contemplates whether . . . the amendment could present a viable claim on the merits for 19 which relief could be granted.”). 20 Finally, to the extent Petitioner tries to raise new claims and arguments in her 21 Objections to the Report and Recommendation, the Court declines to exercise its 22 discretion to address these new arguments substantively. See United States v. Howell, 23 231 F.3d 615, 631-22 (9th Cir. 2000) (district judge did not abuse discretion in refusing 24 to consider factual allegations not presented to the magistrate judge); see also Brown v. 25 Roe, 279 F.3d 742, 744-45 (9th Cir. 2002) (a district court has discretion, but is not 26 required, to consider evidence or claims presented for the first time in objections to a 27 report and recommendation). However, the Court has nevertheless reviewed each of 28 1 || Petitioner’s proposed claims and arguments and finds they do not warrant a different 2 || outcome. 3 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment will be entered denying the 4 || Petition and dismissing this action without prejudice. Dated: May 31, 2023 tn. NW 7 JUDGE JOHN A.KRONSTADT 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28