Opinion
Case No. CV 17-07234 DOC (RAO)
01-11-2018
LARA ANDRES MICHAL, Petitioner, v. DEAN BORDERS, Warden, Respondent.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, all of the records and files herein, and the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("Report"). Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Petitioner has objected. The Report sufficiently addresses the bulk of the arguments made by Petitioner in his Objections. However, one argument raised in the Objections warrants further discussion.
Petitioner contends that, contrary to what is stated in the Report, that he has been denied a youth offender hearing. (Objections at 2, Dkt. No. 13.) Petitioner asserts that the parole hearing provided to him was an adult parole hearing, at which he was evaluated as an "Adult Criminal." (Id.) Petitioner's contention rests on the premise that Senate Bill 260 mandates that youth offenders be evaluated for parole eligibility under the standards of juvenile delinquency. (Id. at 1.) Petitioner misconstrues the relief provided to youth offenders by the enactment of Senate Bill 260. As stated in the Report, Senate Bill 260 established a parole eligibility mechanism for offenders under the age of 18 years at the time of the controlling offense and who have certain sentences. The new law did not establish different criteria for evaluating youth offenders as distinguished from adult offenders. See generally 2013 Cal. Legis. Ch. 312 (S.B. 260) (West); Cal. Pen. Code § 3051.
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. DATED: 01/11/18
/s/_________
DAVID O. CARTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE