Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00967/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00967-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
G. Giurbino
Respondent
Timothy Toralba
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY TORALBA,

Petitioner,

v.

G. GIURBINO,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 06-00967 OWW DLB HC

ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO

SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on June 27, 2006, in the

United States District Court for the Southern District of California. By order of July 17, 2006,

the petition was transferred to this Court, and filed on July 25, 2006. Respondent filed an answer

to the petition on November 21, 2006. (Court Doc. 9.) Petitioner has not filed a traverse. 

Petitioner raises the single claim that the trial violated his Sixth and Fourteenth

Amendment rights by summarily denying his Batson/Wheeler motion without affording him the

opportunity to state a prima facie case, and failed to inquire into the prosecutor’s explanation for

the dismissal of one of the prospective jurors. (Petition, at 6.)

 Evaluation of allegedly discriminatory peremptory challenges to potential jurors in

federal and state trials is governed by the standard established by the United States Supreme

Court in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 89 (1986). In Batson, the United States Supreme

Case 1:06-cv-00967-OWW -DLB Document 12 Filed 01/04/08 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

Court set out a three-step process in the trial court to determine whether a peremptory challenge

is race-based in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 767,

115 S.Ct. 1769 (1995). First, the defendant must make a prima facie showing that the prosecutor

has exercised a peremptory challenge on the basis of race. Id. That is, the defendant must

demonstrate that the facts and circumstances of the case "raise an inference" that the prosecution

has excluded venire members from the petit jury on account of their race. Id. 

If a defendant makes this showing, the burden then shifts to the prosecution to provide a

race-neutral explanation for its challenge. Id. At this step, "the issue is the facial validity of the

prosecutor's explanation. Unless a discriminatory intent is inherent in the prosecutor's

explanation, the reason offered will be deemed race neutral." Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S.

352, 360, 111 S.Ct. 1859 (1991). Finally, the trial court must determine if the defendant has

proven purposeful discrimination.

“When there is reason to believe that there is a racial motivation for the challenge, neither

the trial courts nor we are bound to accept at face value a list of neutral reasons that are either

unsupported in the record or refuted by it.” Johnson v. Vasquez, 3 F.3d 1327, 1331 (9 Cir. th

1993). The court must consider the record as a whole and each explanation in order to

determine whether an invidious discriminatory purpose may be inferred from the totality of the

relevant facts of the case. Kesser v. Cambra, 465 F.3d 351, 360 (9 Cir. 2006) (citing th

Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 363.) 

In Kesser v. Cambra, the Ninth Circuit applied the comparative juror analysis as done by

the Supreme Court in Miller-El, 545 U.S. 231 (2005), rejecting the notion that the court should

not engage in comparative analysis for the first time on appeal. 465 F.3d at 360-361. 

In light of the Ninth Circuit’s recent holding in Kesser, the Court finds it necessary for

Respondent to submit a supplemental brief addressing its impact, if any, on Petitioner’s Batson

claim. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within THIRTY (30) days from the date of service of this order, Respondent

shall submit supplemental briefing; and

Case 1:06-cv-00967-OWW -DLB Document 12 Filed 01/04/08 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

2. Within TWENTY (20) days from the date Respondent files its supplemental

briefing, Petitioner may file a supplemental response.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 3, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00967-OWW -DLB Document 12 Filed 01/04/08 Page 3 of 3