1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 JACOBY T. JACKSON, ) Case No.: 1:25-cv-0257 JLT SAB ) 12 Petitioner, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 13 v. ) RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, ) DISMISSING THE PETITION WITHOUT 14 PATWIN HORN, ) PREJUDICE, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF ) COURT TO CLOSE THIS CASE 15 Respondent. ) ) (Docs. 11, 13) 16

17 Jacoby Jackson is a state prisoner, proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant 18 to

, seeking review related to a conviction in 2023. (Doc. 1 at 1.) Respondent moved 19 to dismiss the petition, asserting the “Court is foreclosed from reviewing Petitioner’s federal challenge 20 to his criminal conviction because the conviction was not final when he filed his federal petition on 21 February 28, 2025.” (Doc. 11 at 2; see also

.) In the alternative, Respondent argued that 22 Petitioner has not exhausted his claims. (Id. at 5-6.) Petitioner did not oppose the motion 23 The magistrate judge found the Court should abstain from addressing the decision pursuant to 24 the Younger abstention doctrine. (Doc. 13 at 2-4.) The magistrate judge also found that Petitioner’s 25 did not exhaust his four grounds for relief related to ineffective assistance of counsel. However, the 26 magistrate judge observed that only a portion of Ground One related to ineffective assistance of 27 counsel, resulting in the petition being mixed. (Id. at 4-7.) The magistrate judge noted that dismissal 28 was also appropriate for the mixed petition, to give Petitioner the opportunity to exhaust if he was able 1 ||todo so. Ud.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the Court grant Respondent’s motion tc 2 || dismiss and dismiss the petition without prejudice. (/d.) 3 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Petitioner and notified him that any 4 || objections were due within 30 days. (Doc. 13 at 7.) The Court advised him that the “failure to file 5 || objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.” (Jd. at 6 || citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

(9th Cir. 2014).) Petitioner did not file objections 7 || and the time to do so has passed. 8 According to

(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. Havi 9 || carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported 10 || by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 11 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated August 15, 2025 (Doc. 13) are □□□□□□□ 12 in full. 13 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 11) is GRANTED. 14 3. The petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. 15 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 16 17 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 || Dated: _ September 25, 2025 ( Li pA LU. wan 19 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28