Starks v. Arnold

Full title: BRIAN BILAL STARKS, Petitioner, v. ERIC ARNOLD, Warden, Respondent.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - WESTERN DIVISION

Date published: Jun 30, 2016

NO. CV 15-04627-AG (AS) (C.D. Cal. Jun. 30, 2016)

Opinion

NO. CV 15-04627-AG (AS)

06-30-2016

BRIAN BILAL STARKS, Petitioner, v. ERIC ARNOLD, Warden, Respondent.

ANDREW GUILFORD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, all of the records herein and the attached Final Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. After having made a de novo determination of the portions of the initial Report and Recommendation to which objections were directed, the Court concurs with and accepts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge in the Final Report and Recommendation.

The United States Supreme's Court's decision in Foster v. Chatman, 2016 WL 2945233 (May 23, 2016), finding the exercise of peremptory challenges against two prospective black jurors to be purposeful discrimination at step three of the Batson process, is consistent with the Magistrate Judge's findings and conclusions. In Foster, the record undermined the prosecution's justifications for using peremptory strikes to excuse all four prospective black jurors and a comparative juror analysis revealed that the prosecutor's stated reasons for excusing potential black jurors applied to jurors who were selected to serve. As noted in the Final Report and Recommendation, the state court's finding that Petitioner had failed to establish a prima facie showing of purposeful discrimination was not an unreasonable determination of the facts. (See Final Report and Recommendation at 18-21). A comparative juror analysis did not indicate that the prosecutor's reasons for striking a potential Hispanic juror were racially motivated. Id.

IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered denying and dismissing the Petition with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk serve copies of this Order, the Magistrate Judge's Final Report and Recommendation and the Judgment herein on counsel for Petitioner and counsel for Respondent.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

DATED: June 30, 2016.

/s/_________

ANDREW GUILFORD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE