Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_01-cv-00142/USCOURTS-casd-3_01-cv-00142-0/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 01cv142

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY ARTHUR BUSH,

Petitioner,

v.

CHERYL K. PLILER, Warden, ET AL.

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 01CV0142-J (NLS)

ORDER GRANTING

PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

Petitioner originally filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with this Court pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254 in January 2001. [Doc. No. 1.] Subsequently, in November 2002, the Court

issued an order denying the petition and granting a certificate of appealability. [Doc. No. 32.] 

On August 18, 2008, the Ninth Circuit issued a mandate reversing in part and affirming in part

this Court’s order and remanding “so that the district court may hold a hearing to give the

prosecutor a chance to offer a race-neutral explanation and so that the district court may

determine whether the prosecutor violated Batson.” [Doc. No. 68.] On December 1, 2008, the

Court held an evidentiary hearing to consider Petitioner’s challenge under Batson v. Kentucky,

476 U.S. 79 (1986), and the Court subsequently denied the petition. [Doc. No. 90.] Petitioner

now seeks a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and Federal Rule of

Appellate Procedure 22(b). [Doc. No. 92.] For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS

Petitioner’s Request for a Certificate of Appealability.

Case 3:01-cv-00142-BEN-NLS Document 94 Filed 03/20/09 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

27

28

2 01cv142

Legal Standard

A state prisoner may not appeal the denial of a section 2254 habeas petition unless he

obtains a certificate of appealability from a district or circuit judge. 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(1)(A);

see also United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1269-70 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that district

courts retain authority to issue certificates of appealability under AEDPA). In deciding whether

to grant a certificate of appealability, a court must either indicate the specific issues supporting a

certificate or state reasons why a certificate is not warranted. See id. at 1270. A certificate of

appealability is authorized “if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To meet this standard, Petitioner must show that:

(1) the issues are debatable among jurists of reason; (2) a court could resolve the issues in a

different manner; or (3) the questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. 

Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1024-25 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529

U.S. 473 (2000)); Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983). Petitioner does not have to show

“that he should prevail on the merits. He has already failed in that endeavor.” Lambright, 220

F.3d at 1025 (citing Barefoot, 463 U.S. at 893 n.4). 

Discussion

Petitioner asks the Court to grant him a certificate of appealability on two issues: whether

the prosecutor offered a sufficient race-neutral reason for striking prospective juror Howard; and

whether the reasons given by the prosecutor were pretextual. 

At the evidentiary hearing in this case, the prosecutor in Petitioner’s criminal trial gave

several reasons for striking prospective juror Howard, but she also testified that, prior to reading

the voir dire transcript, she had no independent recollection of Mr. Howard or her reasons for

dismissing him from the juror pool. (Evidentiary Hr’g Tr. at 27-28.) Moreover, she agreed that

her “ideas about why [she] might have stricken Mr. Howard . . . are based not the particularities

of this case, but sort of on [her] general voir dire approach . . . during the dozens of felony cases

that [she] tried.” (Id. at 28.) The Ninth Circuit has held that “where the state has not put

forward an actual reason, ‘such a failure, or in this case an assertion of bad memory, is evidence

of discrimination.’” Paulino v. Harrison (Paulino II), 542 F.3d 692, 702 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing

Case 3:01-cv-00142-BEN-NLS Document 94 Filed 03/20/09 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

27

28

3 01cv142

Yee v. Duncan, 463 F.3d 893, 900 (9th Cir. 2006). In the same case, the Ninth Circuit declined

to decide whether a prosecutor’s testimony about her “general principles of jury selection” could

satisfy the state’s burden under Batson. Id. at 701, 701 n.10. As a result, reasonable jurists

could disagree about whether the prosecutor’s testimony at the evidentiary hearing in this case

was sufficient. 

In its most recent order denying Petitioner a writ of habeas corpus, the Court found that

the race-neutral reasons offered by the prosecutor at the evidentiary hearing–Mr. Howard’s work

schedule, his exposure to publicity about the trial, and his knowledge of gangs–were not

pretextual. Petitioner argues that, with respect to the first two reasons, Mr. Howard was not very

different from many other jurors who have a work schedule that is not nine-to-five or who could

“avoid publicity by closing a paper or turning a tv channel.” In addition, the prosecutor

questioned Mr. Howard extensively about his knowledge of gangs but did not similarly question

a white juror who also likely had such knowledge. Although the Court found that the different

treatment was justified given the record, reasonable jurists could disagree about whether the

reasons given by the prosecutor were pretextual. 

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s request for a certificate of

appealability on the issues of whether the prosecutor gave a sufficient race-neutral reason for

striking prospective juror Howard, and whether the reasons given by the prosecutor were

pretextual. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 20, 2009

HON. NAPOLEON A. JONES, JR.

United States District Judge

cc: Magistrate Judge Stormes

All Counsel of Record

Case 3:01-cv-00142-BEN-NLS Document 94 Filed 03/20/09 Page 3 of 3