Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01856/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01856-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANSAR EL MUHAMMAD also

known as CHEVAL WRIGHT,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1856 FCD JFM P

vs.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel with an application for a

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his 2001 conviction on

charges of first degree murder, attempted second degree robbery, and second degree robbery,

with true findings as to allegations of use of a firearm and that the murder was committed while

petitioner was engaged in a robbery. 

This action is proceeding on the first amended petition filed February 14, 2005. 

Therein, petitioner raises six claims, including a claim that his trial counsel was ineffective in,

inter alia, failing to request that the trial court “admonish the jurors against engaging in improper

contacts or other forms of misconduct” during an eleven day break in deliberations that began the

day after jury deliberations started. This matter is before the court on petitioner’s motion for

discovery pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States

Case 2:04-cv-01856-JAM-JFM Document 43 Filed 06/15/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

District Courts, by which petitioner seeks an order directing respondents to provide him with the

name, addresses and telephone numbers of the trial jurors. 

Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District

Courts authorizes a judge to permit discovery in a habeas corpus case “for good cause shown.” 

Rule 6(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 

The Supreme Court has stated that Rule 6(a ) “is meant to be

‘consistent’ ” with its holding in Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286,

89 S.Ct. 1082, 22 L.Ed.2d 281 (1969), in which the Court held that

“where specific allegations before the court show reason to believe

that the petitioner may, if the facts are fully developed, be able to

demonstrate that he is ... entitled to relief, it is the duty of the court

to provide the necessary facilities and procedures for an adequate

inquiry.” Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 908-09, 117 S.Ct. 1793,

138 L.Ed.2d 97 (1997) (quoting Harris, 394 U.S. at 300, 89 S.Ct.

1082) (alteration in original). Likewise, we have held that a district

court abused its discretion in not ordering Rule 6(a) discovery

when discovery was “essential” for the habeas petitioner to

“develop fully” his underlying claim. Jones [v. Wood], 114 F.3d

[1002] at 1009 [(9 Cir. 1997)]. th

Pham v. Terhune, 400 F.3d 740, 743 (9 Cir. 2005). th

Petitioner seeks the requested discovery in order to investigate facts relevant to 

the prejudice prong of the foregoing ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Petitioner was

denied the requested discovery in state court on the ground that petitioner was “on a fishing

expedition,” and respondents oppose the instant motion on the same ground. (Opposition to

Petitioner’s Rule 6 Motion for Discovery, filed April 16, 2007, at 2.) Under Rule 6(a) of the

federal habeas rules, respondents’ contention is without merit.

The record shows that petitioner’s trial commenced on June 4, 2001. The jury

began deliberations on June 27, 2001. The following day, the jury was dismissed for an eleven

day period over the July 4 holiday without any admonishment from the court to refrain from

improper contacts or communications about the trial during the break. On July 9, 2001, the day

they returned from the break, the jury returned a verdict against petitioner. These factual

circumstances, combined with the fact that there is no way for petitioner to fully develop the

Case 2:04-cv-01856-JAM-JFM Document 43 Filed 06/15/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

prejudice prong of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim without the requested juror

information, renders the discovery “essential” and this court duty-bound to grant the motion.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s April 2, 2007 motion for discovery is granted; and

2. Within thirty days from the date of this order petitioner shall seek the discovery

authorized by this order; and

3. This matter is set for status conference on September 6, 2007 at 11:00 a.m. in

Courtroom # 26.

DATED: June 14, 2007.

12

muha1856.disc

Case 2:04-cv-01856-JAM-JFM Document 43 Filed 06/15/07 Page 3 of 3