Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00640/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00640-1/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

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 - 06CV640 WQH (RBB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALFREDRICK LOVE,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06CV640 WQH (RBB)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

vs. RECOMMENDATION

L.E. SCRIBNER, Warden,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 11) of Magistrate Judge

Ruben B. Brooks, filed on September 7, 2006, recommending that the Court deny Petitioner

Alfredrick Love’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. # 1).

BACKGROUND

After an August 27, 2001 prison riot at Calipatria State Prison, the State of California charged

Petitioner with battery on a non-confined person for striking a Department of Corrections Officer.

(Lodgment No. 1, Clerks Tr. Vol. 1 at 1C). Petitioner is Black, and was incarcerated at Calipatria

State Prison at the time of the prison riot. In July of 2003, Petitioner’s case proceeded to jury trial in

state court, where Petitioner represented himself. (Lodgment No. 8). During jury selection, the trial

judge excused or deferred service for every potential juror with a qualifying hardship. (Lodgment No.

9, Rep. Augmented Tr. vol. 5 at 126-63, 170-73). Of those venirepersons remaining after

consideration of hardships, only one was Black. (Lodgment No. 9, Rep. Augmented Tr. vol. 5 at 372).

Case 3:06-cv-00640-WQH-RBB Document 15 Filed 01/19/07 Page 1 of 5
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 - 06CV640 WQH (RBB)

The prosecution used its eighth peremptory challenge to excuse the lone remaining Black

venireperson. (Lodgment No. 9, Rep.’s Augmented Tr. vol. 6 at 368-69). 

Petitioner made a timely objection to the prosecution’s excusing the lone Black venireperson,

arguing that the prosecution’s peremptory challenge was racially motivated. (Lodgment No 9, Rep’s

Augmented Tr. vol. 6 at 371). The prosecution stated that the Black member of the jury panel was

excused because,

she’s a social worker and eligibility worker. I excused both of those that I believed to

be that. That is a personal – my personal jury selection. Teachers and social workers

don’t sit on the jury. I referred to Chris Kowalski’s notes who was in original voir

dire. It appears she was an eligibility worker. They are not favorable jurors to the

prosecution.

(Lodgment No. 9, Rep. Augmented Tr. vol. 6 at 371). Petitioner responded by saying that, 

From my notes, she’s not a teacher and social worker. The only thing about her

background has been law enforcement, which makes it seem – conventionally she

would be leaning toward the District Attorney. The only thing I can see that you

would possibly dismiss her for is that she’s African/American.

(Lodgment No. 9, Rep. Augmented Tr. vol. 6 at 372). 

The state trial court denied Petitioner’s challenge to the prosecution’s use of its peremptory

challenge on the grounds that Petitioner did not make out a prima facie case of purposeful

discrimination because Petitioner was unable to show a “pattern” of racially motivated peremptory

strikes. (Lodgment No. 9, Rep. Augmented Tr. vol. 6 at 372). Alternatively, the court denied

Petitioner’s challenge on the grounds that the prosecution stated a reasonable race-neutral explanation

for excusing the lone remaining Black member of the jury pool. (Lodgment No. 9, Rep. Augmented

Tr. vol. 6 at 372-73). On July 28, 2003, the jury convicted Petitioner.

On June 16, 2004, Petitioner filed an appeal, arguing that he was entitled to a new trial based

upon the prosecution’s racially motivated use of a peremptory challenge. (Lodgment No. 2,

Appellant’s Opening Brief at 8). The California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction. (Lodgment

No. 5). On March 22, 2006, Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this Court.

(Doc. # 1). After reviewing the record, the Magistrate Judge filed the Report and Recommendation

(Doc. # 11) recommending denial of Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. # 1).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The duties of the district court in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and

Case 3:06-cv-00640-WQH-RBB Document 15 Filed 01/19/07 Page 2 of 5
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

- 3 - 06CV640 WQH (RBB)

recommendation are set forth in Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1). The district 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.” 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); see also United States v. Remsing,

874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989).

When no objections are filed, the district court may assume the correctness of the magistrate

judge’s factual findings and decide the motion on the applicable law. Johnson v. Nelson, 142 F. Supp.

2d 1215, 1217 (S.D. Cal. 2001), citing Campbell v. United States District Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206

(9th Cir. 1989). “When a party objects to any portion of the Magistrate’s Findings and

Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the

Magistrate’s report.” Morrison v. Cook, Civil No. 97-57-ST, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14233, at *1-2

(D. Ore. April 27, 1999), citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, 656

F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). As Petitioner has filed general objections to the Report and

Recommendation, the Court will review the Report and Recommendation de novo.

DISCUSSION

Petitioner seeks habeas relief on the grounds that his due process rights were violated at trial

when the prosecution excused the lone Black member of the jury pool with its eighth peremptory

challenge. See Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). Petitioner argues that the prosecution’s

excusing the lone Black member of the jury pool was racially motivated, impermissible under Batson,

and entitles him to a new trial.

As noted in the Report and Recommendation, a court reviewing a Batson challenge must

undertake a three-step inquiry.

First, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has made a prima facie

showing that the prosecutor exercised a peremptory challenge on the basis of race.

Second, if the showing is made, the burden shifts to the prosecutor to present a raceneutral explanation for striking the juror in question. . . . Third, the court must then

determine whether the defendant has carried his burden of proving purposeful

discrimination.

Rice v. Collins, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S. Ct. 969, 973-74 (2006), citing Batson, 476 U.S. at 98. In order

to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, a defendant must produce evidence sufficient to

permit the trial judge to draw an inference of discrimination. Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162,

Case 3:06-cv-00640-WQH-RBB Document 15 Filed 01/19/07 Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 - 06CV640 WQH (RBB)

170 (2005). “The Constitution forbids striking even a single prospective juror for a discriminatory

purpose.” Williams v. Runnels, 432 F.3d 1102, 1107 (2006) (citations omitted). In order prevail under

Batson, a defendant has the burden of proving purposeful discrimination. Batson, 476 U.S. at 98.

A district court employs a deferential standard when reviewing a habeas petition’s claims that

were previously adjudicated by a state court on the merits. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Under those

circumstances, a district court only grants a habeas petition where the decision of the state court was

contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court precedent. 28

U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). The district court reviews de novo claims where the state court utilized the

improper standard. Williams, 432 F.3d at 1105. Here, the Magistrate Judge concluded, and this Court

agrees, that the California Court of Appeal utilized the improper standard for evaluating whether

Petitioner made a prima facie showing of discrimination under Batson. Accordingly, the Magistrate

Judge correctly reviewed Petitioner’s Batson claim de novo. Report & Recommendation at 14, see

Paulino v. Castro, 371 F.3d 1083, 1090 (9th Cir. 2004).

The Magistrate Judge recommends denial of Petitioner’s habeas petition because,

notwithstanding the fact that the California Court of Appeal utilized the improper standard for making

out a prima facie case, Petitioner failed to satisfy his burden of proving purposeful discrimination.

After reviewing the record, the opinion of the California Court of Appeal, and the Report and

Recommendation, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s determination was correct. The

prosecution provided a race-neutral explanation for striking the lone Black juror, and the record

supports the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Petitioner did not carry his burden of proving

purposeful discrimination. The Magistrate Judge correctly determined that Petitioner is not entitled

to an evidentiary hearing because, though a fully developed factual record exists, Petitioner did not

satisfy any one of the six factors articulated in Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 313 (1963). See

Insyxiengmay v. Morgan, 403 F.3d 657, 669-70 (9th Cir. 2005). The Court adopts the Report and

Recommendation in its entirety.

After objecting to the Report and Recommendation, Petitioner filed a motion asking the Court

to take judicial notice of the difficulties he has experienced in accessing the prison law library (Doc.

# 14). After consideration of the motion and the relevant law, the Court concludes that it would not

Case 3:06-cv-00640-WQH-RBB Document 15 Filed 01/19/07 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 - 06CV640 WQH (RBB)

be appropriate to take judicial notice of petitioner’s access issues. Petitioner’s motion to take judicial

notice (Doc. # 14) is DENIED.

CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation (Doc. # 11) in its entirety. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc.

# 1), motion to take judicial notice (Doc. # 14), and request for an evidentiary hearing are DENIED.

The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Respondent and close the district court case

file.

DATED: January 19, 2007

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00640-WQH-RBB Document 15 Filed 01/19/07 Page 5 of 5