Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01141/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01141-6/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

ORDER DISMISSING PETITIONER’S

APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS - 1

2:03-CV-1141-RRB-JFM P

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No. 2:03-CV-1141 RRB JFM P

ORDER

Petitioner Aaron Hargrove (“Petitioner”), a state

prisoner proceeding through counsel, filed the above-entitled

action, i.e., an application for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

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

General Order No. 262.

On July 31, 2007, Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds filed

Findings and Recommendations (Docket 40) herein, which were served

on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed

within twenty days. Respondent C.K. Pliler (“Respondent”) filed

AARON HARGROVE,

Petitioner,

vs.

C.K. PLILER, Warden

Respondent.

Case 2:03-cv-01141-RRB-JFM Document 43 Filed 10/03/07 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

1 Indeed, in conjunction with Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S.

79 (1986), and for additional reasons more carefully articulated

within the relevant pleadings, the Court concurs with both the

trial court and the California Court of Appeal for the Third

Appellate District in that the prosecutor’s reasons for preempting

the three jurors at issue were supported by substantial evidence in

the record and were not implausible and/or discriminatory.

ORDER DISMISSING PETITIONER’S

APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS - 2

2:03-CV-1141-RRB-JFM P

Objections to the Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendations at

Docket 41; following which Plaintiff filed a Reply at Docket 42.

Inasmuch as the Court concludes the issues before it are

based in law, i.e., legal disputes, and in accordance with the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, the

Court has conducted a de novo review of the relevant pleadings

filed in this matter. Having carefully and thoroughly reviewed the

same, the Court does not concur with all of the Magistrate’s

Findings and Recommendations at Docket 40.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s February 5, 2007, Motion for Summary

Judgment (Docket 29) is DENIED;

2. The Findings and Recommendations (Docket 40) filed

on July 31, 2007, are adopted in-part, i.e., only with respect to

Juror No. 3;

3. Petitioner’s Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

(Docket 1) is DENIED in all other respects1

; and

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:03-cv-01141-RRB-JFM Document 43 Filed 10/03/07 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

ORDER DISMISSING PETITIONER’S

APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS - 3

2:03-CV-1141-RRB-JFM P

3. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

ENTERED this 2nd day of October, 2007.

S/RALPH R. BEISTLINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-01141-RRB-JFM Document 43 Filed 10/03/07 Page 3 of 3