Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01262/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01262-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHILLIP EUGENE LABARR,

Petitioner,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

No. 1:24-cv-01262-KES-SKO (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS WITH PREJUDICE, DECLINING 

TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY, AND DIRECTING 

CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT 

AND CLOSE CASE

(Doc. 10)

Petitioner Phillip Eugene LaBarr is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter was 

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 

Rule 302.

On October 18, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge made a preliminary review of the 

petition and determined that the petition failed to state a claim for relief, failed to exhaust state 

remedies, and failed to name a proper respondent. Doc. 8. Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules 

Governing Section 2254 Cases, the assigned magistrate judge dismissed the petition without 

prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to provide petitioner with a blank habeas corpus form so 

Case 1:24-cv-01262-KES-SKO Document 11 Filed 01/13/25 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

that he could file an amended petition which might cure the identified deficiencies. See id. The 

order gave petitioner thirty days to file an amended petition, see id., but he never did so. 

Therefore, on December 2, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending that the petition be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state 

a claim, failure to exhaust state remedies, and failure to name a proper respondent. Doc. 10. 

Those findings and recommendations were served upon all parties and contained notice that any 

objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service. No objections have 

been filed, and the deadline to do so has expired. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1), the Court has conducted a de 

novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court concludes that the 

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper 

analysis. 

Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the Court now turns to 

whether a certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus 

has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is 

allowed only in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-336 (2003). If a 

court denies a habeas petition on the merits, the court may issue a certificate of appealability only “if 

jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of [the petitioner’s] constitutional 

claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to 

proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). While 

the petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate “something more 

than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . part.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. 

at 338. 

In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s 

determination that the petition should be denied debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to 

proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

/ / /

Case 1:24-cv-01262-KES-SKO Document 11 Filed 01/13/25 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Accordingly, 

1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 2, 2024, Doc. 10, are

adopted in full;

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed with prejudice; 

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case; and

4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2025 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01262-KES-SKO Document 11 Filed 01/13/25 Page 3 of 3