Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02494/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02494-4/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

ANDREW A. CEJAS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-08-2494 MCE EFB P

vs.

JAMES A. YATES, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus. See 28

U.S.C. § 2254. On October 7, 2009, he filed a “Motion for Discovery” (Dckt. No. 18) seeking

an order from this court allowing discovery of the telephone numbers and addresses of the jurors

who served in his trial.

A habeas petitioner “is not entitled to discovery as a matter of ordinary course.” Bracy v.

Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 903 (1997). Under Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, “A

judge may, for good cause, authorize a party to conduct discovery under the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure and may limit the extent of discovery.” Good cause exists “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[.]” Bracy, 520 U.S. at 908-09

(internal quotation marks omitted). Discovery must be allowed where it is essential for the

Case 2:08-cv-02494-KJM-EFB Document 31 Filed 08/11/10 Page 1 of 4
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

 The petition consists of the form petition with two different points and authorities filed

in different state courts appended, and thus contains several discrete pagination sets. The page

numbers used herein have been obtained by consecutively numbering the petition by hand from

the first page through the last.

2

factual development of the petitioner’s claim. Smith v. Mahoney, 596 F.3d 1133, 1151-52 (9th

Cir. 2010).

Petitioner has advanced a single claim in his habeas petition – that the trial court

provided the jury with a flawed instruction regarding the use of evidence of petitioner’s prior bad

acts. Pet. at 18-26, 32, 37-41.1 The petition contains no claim of jury misconduct. However, in

petitioner’s motion for discovery, petitioner explains (somewhat cryptically and confusedly) that

he requires jurors’ contact information because

brief deliberation after lengthy trial caused by jury instructions and jury

misconduct; prosecutor witness and defense witness observed and heard during

the conversation in the elevator with jurors talking about the trial and feelings of

guilty verdict a week into the trial, which caused an unfair trial; prejudicial error

in the jurors’ confusion and conflicting jury instruction that allowed the jury to

consider petitioner’s prior bad acts in an unlimited fashion to determine

petitioner[’s] guilt cause[s] a need to question jurors and compile affidavits from

jurors regarding acts of misconduct that led to the guilty verdict and jury

instructions. Outside influences on Jury [sic]

Dckt. No. 18 at 2.

Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) governs the admissibility of juror affidavits, providing

that:

Upon inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify 

[1] as to any matter or statement occurring during the course of the jury’s

deliberations[,] or

[2] to the effect of anything upon [the deliberations] or any other juror’s

mind or emotions as influencing the juror to assent to or dissent from the

verdict or concerning the juror’s mental processes in connection therewith.

But a juror may testify about

(1) whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to

the jury’s attention,

Case 2:08-cv-02494-KJM-EFB Document 31 Filed 08/11/10 Page 2 of 4
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

(2) whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon

any juror, or

(3) whether there was a mistake in entering the verdict onto the verdict

form.

A juror’s affidavit or evidence of any statement by the juror may not be received

on a matter about which the juror would be precluded from testifying.

Fed. R. Evid. 606(b) (emphasis added); see Fed. R. Evid. 1101(e) (providing that the Federal

Rules of Evidence apply in habeas proceedings brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254). On

petitioner’s claim that the instruction on prior bad acts violated his constitutional rights – the

only claim alleged in the petition – petitioner seeks the juror affidavits to show the effect of the

allegedly erroneous instruction on the jurors. Rule 606(b) prohibits use of juror affidavits for

that purpose. Accordingly, petitioner has not shown good cause for the discovery sought with

regard to the single claim alleged in the petition.

Juror affidavits may be admissible, however, on a claim of juror misconduct. Petitioner’s

motion for discovery contains vague allegations that some form of juror misconduct occurred

when jurors were overheard making statements showing that they had decided his guilt prior to

deliberations. Because the petition itself contains no such claim, however, the court will deny

leave to conduct discovery into the jurors’ contact information at this time, without prejudice. If

petitioner wishes to raise a claim of juror misconduct, he must seek leave to file an amended

petition including such a claim in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). 

Petitioner may renew his request for permission to conduct discovery into the jurors’ contact

information if and when the court grants him leave to file an amended petition and such amended

petition is actually filed.

////

////

////

////

Case 2:08-cv-02494-KJM-EFB Document 31 Filed 08/11/10 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that petitioner’s October 7, 2009 “Motion for

Discovery” is denied without prejudice.

DATED: August 11, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-02494-KJM-EFB Document 31 Filed 08/11/10 Page 4 of 4