him or to conduct a timely hearing on probable cause. Six days later, on January 17, 2007, Hill was formally charged on counts relating to possession of marijuana, cocaine, and drug paraphernalia. In light of this procedural history (i.e., the filing of state charges before any proceedings of substance on the merits of Hill’s § 2241 petition had taken place in federal court), a magistrate judge issued an exhaustive and well-stated Report and Recommendation recommending the district court abstain from hearing Hill’s § 2241 petition pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). The district court adopted the Report and Recommendation and dismissed Hill’s § 2241 habeas petition without prejudice. See Morrow v. Winslow, 94 F.3d 1386, 1398 (10th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). To be entitled to a COA, Hill must make “a
holding that the district court should have quashed an indictment without requiring the target to show prejudice because the district attorney improperly exercised control over the selection and excusal of grand jurors and the defendant brought this to the attention of the district court before trial holding district court should have abstained pursuant to younger and thus remanding to district court to dismiss without prejudice holding that a district court has discretion to dismiss claims with prejudice because of a plaintiffs various procedural violations holding that claims were procedurally barred through improper exhaustion and remanding for the district court to dismiss on the merits or apply cause and prejudice analysis holding that the district court did not have jurisdiction and remanding the matter to state court