Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02633/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02633-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERALD ANTHONY FOGGY,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 12-CV-2633-LAB-BGS

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

vs. AND RECOMMENDATION

E. VALENZUELA, Warden,

Respondent.

Foggy challenges his conviction for robbery causing great bodily injury on the ground

that the prosecutor improperly used a peremptory challenge to remove a black panelist

during voir dire. If that is true, it is an obvious violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79,

89 (1986).

Foggy’s habeas petition was referred to Magistrate Judge Skomal for a Report and

Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, after which Respondent answered and

Foggy filed a traverse. (See Doc. Nos. 17, 21.) Judge Skomal issued his R&R on March

4, 2014. The Court must review the R&R pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b): “The district

judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been

properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended

disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with

instructions.”

- 1 -

Case 3:12-cv-02633-LAB-BGS Document 26 Filed 04/02/14 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

Foggy’s opposition to the R&R is so feeble as to hardly be considered one at all, in

which case the Court may even summarily adopt it. See Civ. Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c);

Standing Order 4(b). Foggy merely notes that he received the R&R, that he objects to it, and

that he is a layman in the law—all in a single, brief paragraph. (Doc. No. 25.)

In any event, the Court has reviewed the record in this case along with the R&R and

finds it to be well-reasoned and correct. The state court found that Foggy didn’t even make

out a prima facie case of discrimination because the stricken juror indicated a hesitation to

sit in judgment of another person. Even assuming Foggy had made that threshold case,

however, the state court found that the prosecution offered an adequate race-neutral

justification for the use of the peremptory. The stricken juror was not only averse to sitting

in judgment of another, but he was a contrarian in the courtroom and even fell asleep and

snored during proceedings. Neither of these findings was contrary to clearly established

Federal law, nor based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the

evidence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Murray v. Schriro, 2014 WL 997716 at *7–8 (9th Cir.

Mar. 17, 2014) (defining standards under §§ 2254(d)(1) and (2)). 

The Court ADOPTS the R&R and accordingly DENIES Foggy’s habeas petition. The

Petition raises no close legal questions, and the Court will deny Foggy a certificate of

appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 1, 2014

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 -

Case 3:12-cv-02633-LAB-BGS Document 26 Filed 04/02/14 Page 2 of 2