govinfo:USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00377-22

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-0377-KJM-DMC-P 
 
ORDER 
 
 Petitioner, who is represented by counsel, bri ngs this petition for a writ of habeas corpus 
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as 
provided by Eastern District of California local rules. 
 On September 3, 2025, 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. See ECF No. 74. Timely objections to the findings and 
recommendations have been filed. See ECF Nos. 80, 83, 84, and 85. 
 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 finds the 
findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis, including 
with respect to whether Loper Bright renders AEDPA deference unconstitutional. 
///// 

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 
 
 
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 
1. The findings and recommendations filed September 3, 2025, ECF No. 74, 
are adopted in full; 
2. Petitioner’s amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 47, is 
DENIED as to Petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; 
3. Petitioner’s amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 47, is 
DENIED as to Petitioner’s claim of the prosecution’s withholding 
material exculpatory evidence; 
4. Petitioner’s amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 47, is 
GRANTED as to the claim that the trial court erred in admitting testimony 
that violated Petitioner’s rights under the Due Process Clause; and 
5. The State shall release Petitioner from custody within thirty days of the 
filed date of this order, unless, within that thirty-day period, the State files 
a written notice on the docket of this action of its election to retry 
Petitioner, and the State thereafter, within sixty days after the filing of that 
notice, actually commences that retrial. 
DATED: December 31, 2025. 
 
 
 
 
 

Passage view · GavelSight