Murray v. Lozano

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: April 28, 2021
• Docket: 4:20-cv-00471
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RICKEY PAUL MURRAY, Case No. 20-cv-00471-HSG

8 Petitioner, ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT 9 v. TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD

10 J. LOZANO, Respondent. 11

12 13 Rickey Paul Murray filed this pro se action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 14 U.S.C. § 2254. One of Petitioner’s claims for habeas relief is that his counsel was ineffective for 15 failing to raise a challenge under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). Specifically, he 16 contends that his counsel failed to object when the prosecutor struck one of two possible African 17 American jurors, and defense counsel improperly challenged the other remaining African 18 American juror, leaving an all-white panel of jurors. ECF No. 1 at 5–8. The Court orders that, 19 within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, Respondent shall file with this Court and serve 20 upon Petitioner copies of the voir dire transcript, as well as the juror questionnaires. 21 The Court will sua sponte GRANT Petitioner leave to file a supplemental traverse, if 22 Petitioner so wishes, that is limited to addressing the records produced by Respondent pursuant to 23 this order. The supplemental traverse shall not exceed five pages and may not raise new 24 arguments. Petitioner shall file his supplemental traverse within fourteen (14) days of receiving 25 the above-referenced records. The habeas petition will be considered fully submitted by that date. 26 27 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 || Dated: 4/28/2021

‘ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28