Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02240/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02240-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATTHEW LOREN COOK,

NO. CIV.S-02-2240 LKK/GGH P

Petitioner,

v.

O R D E R

ANTHONY LA MARQUE,

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner has raised two issues in his habeas petition, a

Batson violation and a jury misconduct issue. With regard to the

Batson issue, the Findings and Recommendations applied the wrong

standard of review by requiring that petitioner submit “clear and

convincing evidence” to rebut the state court’s factual findings.

As the Ninth Circuit clarified in Kesser v. Cambra, 465 F.3d

351, 358 n.1 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc), which was decided after the

Findings and Recommendations were issued, the appropriate standard

of review to apply to habeas petitions varies depending on whether

there has been a federal evidentiary hearing. When there has been

no such hearing, as is the case here, the standard of review is

governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). That section provides that

Case 2:02-cv-02240-LKK -GGH Document 31 Filed 03/06/07 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

2

relief may be granted where the state court’s adjudication of a

claim “resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable

determination of the facts.” Thus, when a petitioner relies solely

on the state court record, and presents no new evidence, §

2254(d)(2) provides the relevant standard of review.

In contrast, when challenges are based upon extrinsic evidence

or evidence presented for the first time in federal court, a

different standard of review, that is set forth in 28 U.S.C. §

2254(e)(1), applies. In these cases, the petitioner must produce

“clear and convincing evidence” to rebut the presumption of

correctness that attaches to the factual findings of the state

court. See Kesser, 465 F.3d at 358 n.1; Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d

992, 999-1000 (9th Cir. 2004). Here, however, petitioner has not

introduced new evidence, and the magistrate judge erred by applying

§ 2254(e)(1).

The matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for

further findings consistent with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 5, 2007.

Case 2:02-cv-02240-LKK -GGH Document 31 Filed 03/06/07 Page 2 of 2