Lara Andres Michal v. Dean Borders

Filing 14

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge David O. Carter for NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities 5 , Report and Recommendation (Issued) 9 . The Court accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. IT IS ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action with prejudice. (dml)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LARA ANDRES MICHAL,
Petitioner,

12
13
14
15

Case No. CV 17-07234 DOC (RAO)

v.
DEAN BORDERS, Warden,
Respondent.

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE

16
17

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, all of the

18

records and files herein, and the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation

19

(“Report”). Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of

20

the Report to which Petitioner has objected. The Report sufficiently addresses the

21

bulk of the arguments made by Petitioner in his Objections.

22

argument raised in the Objections warrants further discussion.

However, one

23

Petitioner contends that, contrary to what is stated in the Report, that he has

24

been denied a youth offender hearing. (Objections at 2, Dkt. No. 13.) Petitioner

25

asserts that the parole hearing provided to him was an adult parole hearing, at which

26

he was evaluated as an “Adult Criminal.” (Id.) Petitioner’s contention rests on the

27

premise that Senate Bill 260 mandates that youth offenders be evaluated for parole

28

eligibility under the standards of juvenile delinquency.

(Id. at 1.)

Petitioner

1

misconstrues the relief provided to youth offenders by the enactment of Senate Bill

2

260.

3

mechanism for offenders under the age of 18 years at the time of the controlling

4

offense and who have certain sentences. The new law did not establish different

5

criteria for evaluating youth offenders as distinguished from adult offenders. See

6

generally 2013 Cal. Legis. Ch. 312 (S.B. 260) (West); Cal. Pen. Code § 3051.

7
8
9
10

As stated in the Report, Senate Bill 260 established a parole eligibility

Accordingly, the Court accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.
IT IS ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and Judgment shall be entered
dismissing this action with prejudice.

11
12
13
14

DATED: 01/11/18
DAVID O. CARTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

2