N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT STEVE R OM ER O, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt, v. A.M . GONZALES, R

e sponde nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-56436

D.C . No. 5:10-c v-00462-SVW -OP M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Ste phe n V. W ilson, District Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a n d Subm itte d Oc tobe r 20, 2015 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : R AW LINSON a

nd NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s and B O ULWARE, ** Distric t Judge . 

# FIL ED JUN 01 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** The Honora

ble R ic ha rd F. B oulwa

re , Distric t

Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne va da , sitting by de signa tion.Pe titione r Ste ve R om e ro a ppe a ls thedism issa l of his pe tition for writ of ha be a s c orpus. This c ourt ha s jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . §§ 1291 a nd 2253. The c ourt finds tha

t the sta te c ourt’ s sum

m a ry dism issa l of R om e ro’ s ha be a s pe tition with c ita

tions to In reSw ain , 34 C a l. 2d 300, 304 (1949) a n d Pe oplev . Duv all , 9 C a l. 4th 464, 474 (1995) doe s not c le a rly re fle c t a n a djudic ation on the m e rits. Se eC

ross v . Sisto , 676 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th C ir. 2012). The re fore , we re vie w the pe tition d

enov o an d a ffirm

in pa rt a n d re m a n d in pa rt. Se eC onev . Be ll , 556 U.S. 449, 472 (2009). 1. The distric t c ourt prope rly de n ie d R om e ro’ s c l a im

tha t the tria l c ourt e rre d in fa iling to dism

iss a bia se d juror sua sponte . In C a lifornia , a tria l c ourt judge doe s not ha

ve an indepe nde nt, a ffirm ative duty to e xc u se prospe c tive jurors for c a use . Pe o p lev . Bolin , 18 C a l. 4th 297, 315-16 (1998). Furthe r, the Supre m e C ourt ha s he ld tha

t de fe re nc e is owe d whe n re vie wing a tria l judge ’ s de te rm ination of juror bia s. Se eUtte c ht v . Brow n , 551 U.S. 1, 9 (2007). In this c a se , the tria l re c o rd is c le a

r that whilethe tria l judgea c knowle dge d the juror’ s sta

te m e nts indic ating bia s, the judge de c l ine d to dismiss thejuror in pa rt be c a use of R o m e ro’ s c ounse l’ s e xpre sse d ta c tic a l de c ision to re ta i n the juror. 2. The c ourt re m ands thedistric t c ourt’ s de nia l of R om e ro’ s ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l c la im

a ga inst his tria

l c o unse l a s the re c ord is inc om ple te on 2this issue . A tria l c ounse l’ s fa ilure to strikea prospe c tive juror who rep e ate dly e xpre s se s his ina

bility to se rve a s a

n im pa rtia l juror during v oir dire c o uld re pre se nt de fic ie nt pe rform a nc e and pre

j udic e unde r Stric k

l and . Stric k

land v . W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); se e Darbin v . N ourse , 664 F.2d 1109, 1113 (9th C ir. 1981). Thec ourt the re fore re m a n ds for the distric t c ourt to de te rm ine whe the r e vide ntia

ry proc e e dings a

re warrante d to a ddre ss R om e ro’ s c l a im of ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of tria l c ounse l. Se eSc hriro v . Landrigan , 550 U.S. 465, 468, 473 (2007). 3. The distric t c ourt prope rly de nie d R om e ro’ s ine ffe c t ive a ssista nc e of c ounse l c la im

a ga i nst his a

ppe lla te c ounse l for fa ilure to bring a n ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l c la im

on dire c t a

ppe a l. S e e P o l l a r d v . W

h i t e , 1 1 9 F . 3 d 1 4 3 0 , 1 4 3 5 - 3 7 ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 9 7 ) ( i n t e rp r e t i n g S t r i c k l a n d) . R om e ro’ s a ppe l late c ounse l did not ha ve suffic ie nt e vide n c e in there c ord to support a c la im tha t R om e ro’ s tria l c ounse l wa s ine ffe c tive for fa ilure to se e k the e xc l usion of a pote ntia lly

bia se d juror. Se eUnite d State

s v . Rahman , 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th C ir. 2011). Tria l c ounse l ha d e xpre sse d a ta c tic a l re a son for re ta ining thejuror a nd the tria l re c ord provide d no furthe r inform ation re ga rding this de c ision. Rom e ro the re fore fa ils to de m onstra

te a ppe lla te c ounse l’ s pe rform anc e wa s de fic i e nt, a n d tha t but for a ppe lla te c o unse l’ s fa ilure to ra ise the om itte d c la im , the re is a re a sona ble 3proba

b ility tha t the pe titione r would ha

ve pre va ile d on a

ppe a l. Stric k

land, 466 U.S. at 687. Ea c h pa rty sha ll be a r its own c osts. AFFIRM E D in par t and RE M ANDE D in par t.

4