Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00377/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00377-15/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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GENNEL EDWARD MILES, JR., 

Petitioner, 

v. 

BRYAN D. PHILLIPS, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:19-cv-00377-KJM-DMC-P 

ORDER 

 Petitioner, a prisoner proceeding with retained counsel, brings this petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 

Eastern District of California local rules. 

On April 15, 2024, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 

served on the parties, and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within the 

time specified therein. F. & R., ECF No. 60. Petitioner has filed timely objections to the findings 

and recommendations. Objs., ECF No. 63. 

 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court declines to 

adopt the findings and recommendations at this time. In petitioner’s amended petition, petitioner 

contends the state court’s decision is not entitled to AEDPA deference. See Am. Pet. ¶¶ 11, 121–

23, 130, 143–44. Petitioner also requests an evidentiary hearing. Id. at 54 (Prayer for Relief). 

Case 2:19-cv-00377-KJM-DMC Document 65 Filed 08/19/24 Page 1 of 2
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 

In the findings and recommendations, while setting out the AEDPA standards, the 

magistrate judge did not consider whether the state court’s decision is entitled to AEDPA 

deference in the first instance. For example, the magistrate judge did not consider whether the 

state court’s decision not to hold an evidentiary hearing on the ineffective assistance of counsel 

claim rendered “its fact-finding process unreasonable under § 2254(d)(2).” Hibbler v. Benedetti, 

693 F.3d 1140, 1147 (9th Cir. 2012); see Am. Pet. ¶¶ 122–23 (arguing no AEDPA deference 

warranted because state court “unreasonably failed to issue an order to show cause or hold the 

requested evidentiary hearing”). The magistrate judge also did not consider whether an 

evidentiary hearing at the federal level is warranted in this case. See Hibbler, 693 F.3d at 1147–

48 (considering “framework for determining when a district court errs in failing to conduct an 

evidentiary hearing”). 

 Accordingly, the court declines to adopt the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 60) 

at this time and refers the matter back to the magistrate judge to 1) consider petitioner’s 

arguments that the state court’s decision is not entitled to AEDPA deference in the first instance 

and 2) consider whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted in this case. 

DATED: August 16, 2024. 

Case 2:19-cv-00377-KJM-DMC Document 65 Filed 08/19/24 Page 2 of 2