Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05556/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05556-5/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK ANTHONY ALVAREZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

GEORGE M. GALAZA, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:03-CV-05556 AWI LJO HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

[Doc. #21]

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. #1]

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On February 27, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that

recommended the petition be DENIED. The Magistrate Judge further recommended that the Clerk

of Court be DIRECTED to enter judgment. The Findings and Recommendation was served on all

parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of

service of the order. 

On October 26, 2006, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation.

Case 1:03-cv-05556-AWI-LJO Document 33 Filed 11/20/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de

novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file and having considered the

objections, the court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is

supported by the record and proper analysis, and there is no need to modify the Findings and

Recommendations based on the points raised in the objections. The court agrees with the

Magistrate Judge that the prosecutor’s use of two peremptory challenges on African-American

jurors, when one had lied to the court about a prior conviction and there were race neutral reasons to

dismiss the other juror, was insufficient to make a prima facie case showing that the prosecutor

exercised a peremptory challenge on the basis of race. See Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 767

(1995); Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 89 (1986). Further, the court agrees that Petitioner’s

contentions regarding jury instruction error at best show only an error under state law. A challenge

to a jury instruction made solely under state law does not state a claim cognizable in a federal habeas

corpus action. See, Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 71-72 (1991). Further, the California courts

determined the jury instructions were correct under California law. This court must accept the state

court's interpretation of its own law. Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 1996).

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued February 27, 2006, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED; and

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 19, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05556-AWI-LJO Document 33 Filed 11/20/06 Page 2 of 2