Carlos Harris v. RAUL LOPEZ, Warden

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS HARRIS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
RAUL LOPEZ, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 13-15067
D.C. No. 4:11-cv-00533-PJH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 12, 2014**
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Carlos Harris appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas
petition. The district court rejected Harris’s claim that the presence on his jury of a
FILED
JUN 24 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

former schoolteacher with whom he had had problems decades before violated his
Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to an impartial jury in 2005. We affirm.
In the absence of a showing of cause and prejudice, a federal habeas court
will not review a claim rejected by the state court on the basis of an independent
and adequate state procedural rule. Walker v. Martin, 131 S. Ct. 1120, 1127
(2011). Harris cannot demonstrate prejudice because he cannot show that Juror
No. 8 was actually or impliedly biased. See United States v. Gonzalez, 214 F.3d
1109, 1111–12 (9th Cir. 2000). Actual bias is “bias in fact—the existence of a
state of mind that leads to an inference that the person will not act with entire
impartiality.” Id. at 1112 (internal quotation marks omitted). Implied bias exists
in “extreme situations where the relationship between a prospective juror and some
aspect of the litigation is such that it is highly unlikely that the average person
could remain impartial in his deliberations under the circumstances.” Tinsley v.
Borg, 895 F.2d 520, 527 (9th Cir. 1990) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The district court did not err in holding that Harris failed to show that Juror
No. 8 was actually or impliedly biased. There was no evidence of either. Indeed,
Juror No. 8 told Harris’s investigator that although she recalled performing jury
duty in 2005, she had no recollection of Harris from the trial or from school.
AFFIRMED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --