Rivas v. Ryan ( 2010 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FEB 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
ROY C. RIVAS, Jr., No. 07-56165
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. CV-04-01154-J(JMA)
v.
MEMORANDUM *
STUART J. RYAN,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Napoleon A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 5, 2010
Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER, FISHER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Roy Rivas, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of
his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. Rivas argues he was denied a fair trial
because the jury foreman lied during voir dire. He further argues he was deprived
of a peremptory challenge because of the untruthful answers.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The California Court of Appeal did not unreasonably determine that the jury
foreman, Rudy Medina, answered all questions on voir dire truthfully. See 28
U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). Medina himself brought the prior relationship with Rivas’
mother to the trial court’s attention; the relationship had been brief and ended over
twenty years before the trial. The court reasonably determined that Medina did not
lie and therefore Rivas had failed to establish implied bias. See Fields v. Brown,
503 F.3d 755, 773 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc). Rivas had a two day evidentiary
hearing in California Superior Court to establish that Medina was biased and failed
to do so. See id.
Rivas also claims that Medina’s untruthful answers deprived him of a
peremptory challenge. Because a state court’s good-faith deprivation of a
peremptory challenge “is not a matter of federal constitutional concern,” we reject
this claim as well. Rivera v. Illinois, 129 S. Ct. 1446, 1453 (2009).
In reaching this result, we assume proper jurisdiction. Because the petition
lacks merit, we need not address the State’s argument that Evans v. Chavis, 546
U.S. 189 (2006), renders Rivas’ petition untimely.
AFFIRMED.
2