Mayfield v. Orozco, et al.

Filing 381

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 5/2/2017 GRANTING Plaintiff's Batson Motion. The court DISMISSES the eight jurors selected as the jury in this case and will start jury selection again on 5/8/2017 at 9:00am. Counsel for all parties are REQUIRED to appear tomorrow, 5/3/2017 at 9:15am. No witnesses will be required to be present tomorrow. (cc Jury Clerk Sacramento) (Donati, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

JAMES JOSHUA MAYFIELD, JAMES
ALLISON MAYFIELD, JR. and TERRI
MAYFIELD,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Plaintiffs,
v.
IVAN OROZCO, in his individual
capacity, SHERIFF SCOTT JONES,
in his individual and official
capacity, JAMES LEWIS, in his
individual and official
capacity, RICK PATTISON, in his
individual and official
capacity, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO,
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS
HEALTH SYSTEM, DR. GREGORY
SOKOLOV, in his individual
capacity, DR. ROBERT HALES, in
his individual capacity, and
Does 1-5,

22
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:13-cv-02499 JAM-AC
ORDER GRANTING BATSON MOTION

23
24

On the first day of trial in this action (May 1, 2017)

25

Plaintiff James Joshua Mayfield’s counsel raised a Batson motion

26

during jury selection after Defense counsel exercised peremptory

27

challenges to strike prospective jurors #4 and #6—the only two

28

black jurors in the jury venire.

Having heard both parties’
1

1

arguments and reviewed the record, the Court grants Mayfield’s

2

motion.

3

Batson claims apply in civil lawsuits.

See also Edmonson v.

4

Leesville Concrete Co., Inc., 500 U.S. 614, 616, 617-619, 631

5

(1991).

6

process.

7

2000).

8

that Defense counsel exercised race-based peremptory challenges.

9

See McClain, 217 F.3d at 1219.

A Batson claim involves a three-step, burden-shifting
See McClain v. Prunty, 217 F.3d 1209, 1219 (9th Cir.
In this case, Mayfield must make a prima facie case showing

Then the burden shifts to Defense

10

counsel to offer race-neutral explanations for excusing black

11

jurors.

12

the court must determine whether Mayfield has carried his ultimate

13

burden of proving purposeful discrimination.

14

Id.

Finally, if the parties satisfy the first two steps,

The parties meet the first two steps.

Id.

Mayfield has made a

15

prima facie showing:

His counsel argues that opposing counsel

16

excused the only two black jurors and that nothing distinguished

17

them from the other jurors as grounds for excluding them besides

18

their race.

19

neutral explanations.

20

contended that this juror: (1) had a very good friend of his

21

committed suicide and (2) had a DUI.

22

that the Court excluded prospective juror #8 who had a loved one

23

that committed suicide.

24

counsel argued that he was (1) extremely young, (2) lacked life

25

experience, and (3) had scant education.

26

race-neutral explanations suffice.

27

333 (2006) (concluding it was not unreasonable for trial court to

28

accept prosecutor’s age-based explanation for excluding juror).

In response, Defense counsel offered several raceAs to prospective juror #4, Defense counsel

Defense counsel also noted

As for prospective juror #6, Defense

2

At first glance, these

See Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S.

1

That leads to Batson’s final step.

When evaluating whether

2

Mayfield has carried his burden to prove purposeful discrimination,

3

this Court must determine whether Defense counsel’s race-neutral

4

explanations are credible.

5

discriminatory intent turns largely on this court’s evaluation of

6

Defense counsel’s credibility.

7

from “the totality of the relevant facts.”

8

“[a] comparative analysis of jurors struck and those remaining is a

9

well-established tool for exploring the possibility that facially

See McClain at 1220.

See id.

Discerning

A court may infer motive
Id. at 1220.

10

race-neutral reasons are a pretext for discrimination.”

11

Indeed,

1220-21.

12

See id. at

After considering the “totality of the relevant facts,”

13

comparatively analyzing “jurors struck [with] those remaining” the

14

Court finds that Defense counsel’s race-neutral explanations are

15

pretextual.

16

peremptory challenges to strike the only black jurors in a case

17

involving a black plaintiff.

18

suicide is an extremely important issue, yet they did not excuse

19

prospective jurors #1, #7 and #14, non-black jurors who also had

20

close friends and relatives who committed suicide.

21

counsel’s reference to this Court’s excluding prospective juror #8

22

as a reason for also dismissing juror #4 is not persuasive.

23

Court excluded prospective juror #8 because he admitted he could

24

not be impartial; juror #4 said he could.

25

excused prospective juror #6, in part, because he did not have much

26

education.

27

black jurors #2 and #7 have only a high school degree and non-black

28

jurors #16 and #23 have only an AA degree.

First, Defense counsel used two of their five

Second, Defense counsel argued that

Third, Defense

This

Fourth, Defense counsel

Prospective juror #6 has some college education; non-

3

Finally, while juror #6

1

appeared to be relatively young as compared to most of the other

2

prospective jurors, Defense counsel did not request that the Court

3

ask any follow up questions during voir dire concerning his actual

4

age or other life experiences.

5

be a significant age difference between juror #6 and non-black

6

juror #14.

7

Moreover, there does not appear to

Thus, in reviewing the totality of the circumstances

8

surrounding the exercise of peremptory challenges by Defense

9

counsel in this case, the Court finds that jurors #4 and #6 were

10

excluded because of the color of their skin rather than their

11

qualifications, or lack thereof, as a juror in this case.

12

“[R]acial discrimination in the qualification or selection of

13

jurors offends the dignity of persons and the integrity of the

14

Courts.

15

compounds the racial insult inherent in judging a citizen by the

16

color of his or her skin.”

17

citation omitted).

18

To permit racial exclusion in this official forum

Edmonson, 500 U.S. at 628 (internal

Plaintiff’s Batson motion is granted.

The Court dismisses the

19

eight jurors selected as the jury in this case and will start jury

20

selection again on Monday, May 8, 2017 at 9:00 a.m.

21

all parties are required to appear tomorrow, May 3, 2017 at 9:15

22

a.m.

23
24

Counsel for

No witnesses will be required to be present tomorrow.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 2, 2017.

25
26
27
28
4