Damien Johnson filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause was violated when a state prosecutor used peremptory challenges to excuse two prospective male jurors solely because of their gender. Because the state court’s resolution is neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the United States Supreme Court, we affirm the judgment of the district court denying the motion. In April 2001, Johnson was convicted in California state court of willfully inflicting corporal injury on his former live-in girlf Ct. 1419, 128 L.Ed.2d 89 (1994) (<HOLDING>). Basing its decision on the magistrate judge’s
holding that peremptory challenges may not be exercised in a discriminatory manner holding that genderbased peremptory challenges also violate the fourteenth amendment holding that the fourteenth amendment protects every person against purely racially motivated exercise of peremptory challenges holding that the fourteenth amendment precludes peremptory challenges predicated upon race and that once a defendant in a criminal case makes a prima facie showing of discrimi nation the burden shifts to the prosecution to demonstrate a neutral explanation for the challenges holding that racially discriminatory use of peremptory challenges violates the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment