1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 EDWARD LITTLEJOHN, Case No. 2:22-cv-09223-JWH (BFM)

11 Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED

12 v. STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF STATE

HOSPITALS,

14 Respondent. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the records 2 on file, and the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the United States 3 Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 28.) Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo 4 review of those portions of the Report to which objections have been made. 5 The Report recommends that Petitioner’s habeas petition be dismissed as 6 moot because Petitioner has been released from the term of commitment that he had 7 challenged in the Petition. (ECF No. 28.) Petitioner’s Objections to the Report 8 (ECF No. 29) do not warrant a change to the Magistrate Judge’s findings or 9 recommendation, for the reasons set forth below. 10 In his Objections, Petitioner does not dispute the mootness of his claims 11 challenging his term of commitment. Instead, he repeats his claims of ineffective 12 assistance of counsel and double jeopardy relating to his term of commitment. 13 (ECF No. 20 at 3-4.) For these reasons stated in the Report, the Court lacks 14 jurisdiction to consider these claims. (ECF No. 28 at 6.) 15 Petitioner also raises in his Objections new claims of judicial bias and denial 16 of the right to self-representation. (ECF No. 28 at 2-3.) The Court declines to 17 consider these claims because they were not presented to the Magistrate Judge. 18 “[A]llowing parties to litigate fully their case before the magistrate and, if 19 unsuccessful, to change their strategy and present a different theory to the district 20 court would frustrate the purpose of the Magistrate Act.” Greenhow v. Secretary of 21 Health & Human Services, 863 F.2d 633, 638 (9th Cir. 1988), overruled on other 22 grounds by United States v. Hardesty, 977 F.2d 1347, 1348 (9th Cir. 1992) (en 23 banc). Petitioner has not presented “exceptional circumstances or a convincing 24 explanation for the failure to present” all his claims to the Magistrate Judge. 25 Greenhow, 863 F.2d at 639; see also Brook as Trustee of David North II Trust v. 26 McCormley, 837 F. App’x 433, 436 (9th Cir. 2020) (holding that a district court 27 properly declined to consider new claims where the litigant gave “no explanation as 28 to why [he] could not bring all arguments before the Magistrate”). 1 Petitioner further objects that he should recetve damages for his unlawful 2 || commitment. (ECF No. 28 at 5.) That remedy is unavailable to a habeas claimant. 3 || Pinson v. Carvajal, 69 F.4th 1059, 1070 (9th Cir. 2023). 4 For those reasons, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 5 1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is 6 || ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. 7 2. Judgment shall be entered DENYING the Petition and DISMISSING 8 || this action without prejudice. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 | DATED: _ August 7, 2023

13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28