Opinion
Case No. 8:20-cv-00188-MWF (SHK)
07-01-2020
RYAN MARK WABNITZ, Petitioner, v. UNKNOWN, et al., Respondents.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the First Amended Petition ("FAP"), the relevant records on file, and the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of the United States Magistrate Judge. Although the Court provided Petitioner with an extension to file objections after receiving returned mail, no objections have been filed. It is clear from the record that Petitioner has failed to keep the Court apprised of his address as required by the Local Rules.
The Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that the case should be dismissed because (1) abstention is required under Younger and (2) Petitioner has not exhausted his state court remedies.
With respect to the Younger abstention, the Magistrate Judge determined that abstention was required because the three requirements set forth in Columbia Basin Apt. Ass'n v. City of Pasco, 268 F.3d 791, 799-801 (9th Cir. 2001) were satisfied. In addition to these three requirements, the Court examined the fourth requirement identified in AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Roden, 495 F.3d 1143, 1149 (9th Cir. 2007) ("[O]nce the three [] elements are satisfied, the court does not automatically abstain, but abstains only if there is a Younger-based reason to abstain—i.e., if the court's action would enjoin, or have the practical effect of enjoining ongoing state proceedings."). Having done so, the Court determines that Petitioner's requested remedy would have the practical effect of enjoining the ongoing state proceedings.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the R&R and for the additional reason that Petitioner failed to keep his address up to date with the Court, IT IS ORDERED that the FAP be DENIED and that Judgment be entered dismissing this action without prejudice. Dated: July 1, 2020
/s/_________
MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD
United States District Judge