1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 GEROD HARRISON, Case No. No. 2:24-cv-05297-SPG (JDE) 11

12 Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND v. RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED 13 STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE [ECF

14 ROB ST. ANDRE, NO. 18]

15 Respondent. 16

17 Before the Court is the December 3, 2024, Report & Recommendation of United 18 States Magistrate Judge John D. Early, (ECF No. 18 (“Report”)), which addresses the 19 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1 (“Petition”)), filed by Petitioner Gerod 20 Harrison (“Petitioner”). On January 3, 2025, Petitioner filed two objections to the Report: 21 (1) “Objection to Report and Recommendation of United Stats Magistrate Judge,” (ECF 22 No. 21 (“Objection 1”)); and (2) “Objection to All,” (ECF No. 22 (“Objection 2”)). 23 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the record in this case, the 24 Report, and Objections 1 and 2. For the reasons discussed below, the Court overrules 25 Objections 1 and 2 to the Report, adopts the Report, denies the Petition, and dismisses this action with prejudice. The Court concurs with and accepts the findings and conclusions of 26 the Magistrate Judge. 27 28 1 I. Background 2 These facts are taken from the Report unless otherwise stated.1 On December 5, 3 2019, Petitioner was found guilty by a jury in Los Angeles County Superior Court of first- 4 degree murder of decedent Albert Kyle. (Report at 2). On September 16, 2021, the trial 5 court sentenced Petitioner to 31 years to life in state prison on Petitioner’s first-degree 6 murder conviction. (Id.). Petitioner then appealed his conviction and sentence to the 7 California Court of Appeal, which affirmed the judgment of the Los Angeles County 8 Superior Court. At the time of the Report, Petitioner continued to seek post-conviction 9 relief and resentencing through the state courts. (Id.). 10 On June 17, 2024, Petitioner filed the Petition in federal court, seeking a writ of 11 habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1 (“Petition”)). Petitioner argued three 12 grounds to support the writ: (1) that evidence in his trial was insufficient to prove 13 premediated murder, (id. at 2); (2) that the prosecutor improperly “peppered her closing 14 argument with her theory of the case,” including her “theory” that Petitioner intended to 15 kill the decedent if necessary to perpetrate an armed robbery, and that there was insufficient 16 evidence to support that Petitioner intended to rob and murder the decedent, (id. at 4); and 17 (3) Petitioner’s counsel was ineffective because counsel failed to object to the prosecutor’s 18 closing statement as an alleged misstatement of the law and facts, (id. at 5). 19 Magistrate Judge Early reviewed the Petition and recommended it be denied and the 20 action dismissed with prejudice, finding there was “no basis for federal habeas relief based 21 on the state court’s rejection of Petitioner’s claims.” (Report at 17, 36). In particular, the 22 Report finds that the evidence presented at trial, when viewed in the light most favorable 23 to the prosecution, could support that “any rational trier of fact could have found” that 24 Petitioner committed first degree murder, due to the manner of killing, actions taken by 25 Petitioner consistent with a plan, and evidence consistent with a motive to commit the 26 murder. (Report at 21–24); Jackson v. Virginia, 442 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). The Report 27 28 1 The Report sets out the facts and procedural background of this case in detail. Therefore, the Court’s order does not recount in detail those facts here. 1 also finds that the prosecutor’s statements during closing argument were reasonably based 2 on evidence in the record, and her argument did not include misstatements of the law. 3 (Report at 31–33). Finally, the Report finds that Petitioner has not shown there was a 4 reasonable probability that, “but for counsel’s failure to object [to the prosecutor’s closing 5 argument], the result of the proceeding would have been different.” (Report at 36). 6 Accordingly, the Report recommends this Court accept the Report and Recommendation 7 and enter judgment denying the Petition and dismissing the action with prejudice. (Id.). 8 II. Petitioner’s Objections 9 On January 3, 2025, Petitioner filed Objections 1 and 2 to the Report.2 As set forth 10 below, the Objections do not respond to the Report, but, instead, raise new, additional 11 grounds to argue that Petitioner’s conviction is improper and must be overturned. 12 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) requires that, after timely objections are made to the report 13 and recommendation of a Magistrate Judge, the district court judge “shall make a de novo 14 determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or 15 recommendations to which objection is made.” If the objections raised by a party do not 16 relate to “portions of the report or specified proposed findings,” then there is nothing for 17 the court to review do novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 18 140, 149 (1985) (“The statute does not on its face require any review at all, by either the 19 district court or the court of appeals, of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). 20 District courts also have discretion to decline to consider new arguments raised for the first 21 time on objections to a magistrate’s findings and recommendation. See United States v. 22 Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621–22 (9th Cir. 2000); Brook as Trustee of David North II Trust 23 v. McCormley, 837 F. App’x 433, 436 (9th Cir. 2020); see, e.g., Carlson v. Birkholz, 2025

24 2 Central District of California Local Rule 72-3.4 requires any response to a Magistrate 25 Judge’s report be filed within 20 calendar days of the Report’s issuance, or at any further 26 time ordered by the Magistrate Judge. Magistrate Judge Early ordered that objections were due December 30, 2024. (ECF No. 17). Petitioner’s Objections, filed on January 3, 2025, 27 are untimely and provide a separate ground for the Court to overrule Petitioner’s 28 Objections. See (id.); C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12. 1 WL 1014792, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2025) (“Because Petitioner did not raise this 2 argument before the magistrate Judge in [ ] the Petition . . ., the court has no obligation to 3 consider it.”); Castillo v. Martinez, 2024 WL 289318, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2024) 4 (“Generally, a district court is not required to consider new legal theories that were not 5 previously presented to the Magistrate Judge.”); Littlejohn v. Cal. Dep’t of State Hosps., 6 2023 WL 5019895, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2023) (“The Court declines to consider these 7 claims because they were not presented to the Magistrate Judge.”). 8 As to Objection 1, Petitioner’s objections are all based on “new legal theories that 9 were not previously presented to the Magistrate Judge.” Castillo, 2024 WL 289318, at *1. 10 In particular, Petitioner raises the following in Objection 1: (1) that the prosecutor 11 committed misconduct, by allegedly presenting false testimony from an eyewitness, 12 Marvin Tart (Objection 1 at 3–4); (2) that defense counsel was not sufficiently prepared 13 for trial because he declined to obtain a “second opinion on cause of death” (id. at 4); (3) 14 that one of the knives involved in the murder was mishandled (id. at 6); (4) that Petitioner’s 15 Co-Defendant was in an altered state during interrogation (id. at 4–5). Although Petitioner 16 was apparently aware of each of these arguments and could have presented them in his 17 initial Petition reviewed by the Magistrate Judge, none of these arguments were presented 18 in the initial Petition. Moreover, Petitioner’s objections do not explain why he did not raise 19 the arguments that are the subject of his objection in his initial Petition. Allowing a party 20 to “run one version of their case past the magistrate, then another past the district court,” 21 “would frustrate the purpose of the Magistrates Act.” Greenhow v. Sec’y of Health & 22 Human Servs., 863 F.2d 633, 638 (9th Cir. 1988). This Court therefore declines to consider 23 the arguments presented for the first time in Petitioner’s Objection 1. Howell, 231 F.3d at 24 623 (no abuse of discretion where there was “no question that the specific factual 25 allegations [] included in [the] objection were available to the defense before the magistrate 26 judge’s proceedings ever began”). 27 Petitioner’s Objection 2 appears to repeat the same arguments included in Objection 28 1. See (Objection 2). Objection 2 also objects “to all.” (Id.). However, an objection “to 1 |jall” is not sufficiently particularized to support review of the petition. 28 U.S.C. 2 || § 636(b)(1)(C) (district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the 3 ||report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 4 ||(emphasis added)); Ali v. Grounds, 236 F. Supp. 3d 1241, 1249 (S.D. Cal. 2017) (“Only 5 || objections that reference specific portions of the report and recommendation will trigger 6 ||de novo review—general or conclusory objections do not suffice.”); Jeannie M. v. 7 || O'Malley, 2024 WL 1377305, at *2 (E.D. Wash. Mar. 30, 2024) (“The Court need not 8 review an objection to an R&R that is general and non-specific.”); see also Goney v. Clark, 9 || 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984) (stating that word-for-word review of magistrate's report due 10 ||to general objections would undermine judicial efficiency). The Court thus declines to 11 || consider Objection 2. 12 ORDER 13 For the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that (1) the Report and Recommendation of 14 Magistrate Judge is approved and adopted; and (2) Judgment shall be entered denying 15 || the Petition and dismissing this action with prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close the 16 || file. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 || DATED: July 14, 2025 L--—— 20 ~ HON. SHERILYN PEACE GARNETT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22 23 24 25 26 27 28