MEROLANDO WARREN V. TONY HEDGPETH, No. 13-15056 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 21 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MEROLANDO N. WARREN, Petitioner - Appellant, No. 13-15056 D.C. No. 4:08-cv-00754-PJH v. MEMORANDUM* TONY HEDGPETH, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 13, 2014** Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Merolando N. Warren appeals pro se from the district court s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review a district court s denial of a * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). habeas corpus petition de novo, see Stanley v. Cullen, 633 F.3d 852, 859 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm. Warren contends that the prosecutor s use of peremptory challenges to excuse four African-American female jurors violated Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). The state court s conclusion that the peremptory strikes were not motivated by purposeful discrimination was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, nor was it based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Felkner v. Jackson, 131 S. Ct. 1305, 1307 (2011) (per curiam). We construe Warren s additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam). AFFIRMED. 2 13-15056

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.