Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00274/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00274-1/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

18cv274-MMA (RBM)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LABRONE CARLOS HARRIS,

Petitioner,

v.

SCOTT KERNAN, Secretary of the 

California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation

Respondent.

Case No.: 18cv274-MMA (RBM)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED 

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

[Doc. No. 12]

DENYING FIRST AMENDED 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS; AND

[Doc. No. 4]

DECLINING TO ISSUE 

CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY

Petitioner Labrone Carlos Harris, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a 

First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

2254, challenging his convictions for corporal injury to a spouse with infliction of great 

bodily injury and assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury, with infliction of 

great bodily injury. Doc. No. 4; see Doc. No. 10-11 at 2. Respondent filed an answer to 

the Petition. Doc. No. 9. Petitioner did not file a traverse. See Docket. The matter was 

Case 3:18-cv-00274-MMA-RBM Document 13 Filed 02/11/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18cv274-MMA (RBM)

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

referred to United States Magistrate Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro for preparation of 

a Report and Recommendation pursuant to Title 28, section 636(b)(1), and Civil Local 

Rule HC.2. Doc. No. 11. Judge Montenegro has issued a thorough and well-reasoned 

Report recommending that the Petition be denied. See Doc. No. 12.

Pursuant to Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1), the Court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . 

. . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, 

the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate [judge].” 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1); see also United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due no later than December 28, 

2018. Doc. No. 12 at 18. To date, no objections have been filed. See Docket.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Judge Montenegro has issued an accurate Report 

and well-reasoned recommendation that the Petition be denied. The Court ADOPTS the 

Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The Court DENIES the Petition with 

prejudice.

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases states that “the 

district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order 

adverse to the applicant.” A certificate of appealability is not issued unless there is “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 

Under this standard, a petitioner must show that reasonable jurists could debate whether 

the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented 

were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 

U.S. 322, 336 (2003), quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). For the 

reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation and incorporated by reference 

herein, the Court finds that this standard has not been met and therefore DECLINES to 

issue a certificate of appealability in this case.

//

Case 3:18-cv-00274-MMA-RBM Document 13 Filed 02/11/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18cv274-MMA (RBM)

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

The Clerk of Court is instructed to enter judgment accordingly and close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 11, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-00274-MMA-RBM Document 13 Filed 02/11/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3