The opinion of the court was delivered by: Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief Judge United States District Court
(1) ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [Doc No. 29]; (2) REJECTING PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS [Doc. No. 32]; (3) DENYING AND DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; and (4) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Currently before the Court is Bradley Dwayne Queen's ("Petitioner") Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("Petition"). Petitioner challenges his conviction in the Superior Court for the County of San Diego, case number SCD 1195535, for robbery and intentionally discharging a firearm.
The Court referred the matter to United States Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Brooks issued a Report and Recommendation (the "Report") recommending the Court deny and dismiss the Petition on the merits. [Doc. No. 29]. Petitioner subsequently filed his objections to the Report. [Doc. No. 32]. Having considered the Report and Petitioner's objections, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS the Report in full; (2) REJECTS Petitioner's objections; (3) DENIES and DISMISSES the Petition; and (4) DENIES a certificate of appealability.
The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's detailed factual background, [see Report, at 2-4], and takes from the California Court of Appeal's opinion in People v. Queen, No. D050235, 2008 WL 684502 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 14, 2008).Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1), the Court presumes those factual determinations are correct.
On October 12, 2006, a jury found Queen guilty of robbery and intentionally and personally discharging a firearm. [Lodgment No. 1, Clerk's Tr. Vol. 1, 258, Oct. 12, 2006.] On January 26, 2007, the trial court sentenced Queen to a total of twenty years in state prison-the lower term of two years for robbery and a consecutive twenty-year term for the gun enhancement. [Id. at 262, Jan. 26, 2007.]
Queen appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal, alleging the trial court abused its discretion by not reviewing police disciplinary records and by denying Queen's request for a continuance to investigate whether the jury panel represented a fair cross-section of the community. [Lodgment No. 3, Appellant's Opening Br. at 9, 20, People v. Queen, No. D050235 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 14, 2008).] The appellate court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. [Lodgment No. 6, People v. Queen, No. D050235, slip op. at 1 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 14, 2008).] On April 14, 2008, Queen filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court raising only whether he was entitled to discovery to show the exclusion of groups from the jury panel. [Lodgment No. 7, People v. Queen, No. S162620 (Cal. filed Apr. 14, 2008) (petition for review at 2).] On May 21, 2008, the state supreme court summarily denied review. [Lodgment No. 8, People v. Queen, No. S162620, at 1 (Cal. May 23, 2008).]
Queen filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the San Diego Superior Court on July 8, 2009, alleging (i) the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request for police disciplinary records, and (ii) certain groups were improperly excluded from the jury pool. [Lodgment No. 9, In re , HC19645, at 5 (Cal. Super. Ct. filed July 8, 2009).]
Queen requested a stay of proceedings in federal court pending state court exhaustion. [Doc. Nos. 6 & 7.] However, the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Brooks and denied Queen's request for a stay. [Doc. No. 22] The Court dismissed the unexhausted claims. [Id.] Thus, Petitioner's only remaining claim is that the trial court denied Queen due process and his right to a jury composed of a cross-section of the community in violation of his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. Petitioner alleges those constitutional violations occurred when the trial court denied his motion for a continuance and for discovery to support his claim that San Diego County's juror-selection process systematically excludes African-American and Latino residents from serving on petit juries in criminal cases.
Because Petitioner has objected to the Report in its entirety, the Court reviews the Report de . 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Holder v. ...