Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01856/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01856-9/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

 Respondents have requested that the court substitute Derral G. Adams, Warden of 1

Corcoran State Prison, in as respondent in this matter. Good cause appearing, the parties will be

directed to file a stipulation and proposed order identifying the individual(s) who should be the

named respondent(s) in this action.

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.,1

Respondents.

 /

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

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter came on for hearing on

September 5, 2007 on petitioner’s motion to compel the Clerk of the Sacramento County

Superior court to comply with a subpoena duces tecum served by petitioner. A.J. Kutchins, Esq.

appeared as counsel for petitioner. David Lowe, Deputy Attorney General, appeared as counsel

for respondents. Franklin G. Gumpert, Esq., appeared as counsel for non-party Clerk of the

Superior Court, Sacramento County.

By order filed June 15, 2007, this court granted petitioner leave to conduct

discovery to seek the names, addresses and telephone numbers of the jurors at petitioner’s trial. 

Case 2:04-cv-01856-JAM-JFM Document 53 Filed 09/06/07 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

 In the June 15, 2007 order, petitioner was granted thirty days to seek the discovery at 2

issue. In his motion to compel, petitioner represents that he first worked with counsel for

respondents in an informal attempt to obtain the material, and that he served the subpoena duces

tecum at issue when he learned that those informal efforts would require obtaining materials

from storage, a process that would take several weeks. See Motion to Compel, filed August 14,

2007, at 3-4.

 In his motion, petitioner states that by declaration dated August 8, 2007, the 3

Sacramento District Attorney certified to petitioner that it did not have the records at issue. See

Motion to Compel, at 4.

 On August 15, 2007, respondents filed a response to the motion in which they state that 4

the materials are not in their possession and that they have no control over the non-party from

whom the materials are being sought.

2

On or about July 23, 2007, petitioner served subpoenas duces tecum on the Sacramento County 2

District Attorney and the Clerk of the Sacramento County Superior Court. On August 2, 2007,

the Clerk of the Sacramento County Superior Court filed objections to the subpoena. The 3

instant motion followed.

On August 28, 2007, the Clerk of the Sacramento County Superior Court filed an

opposition to the motion. The Clerk contends that the Eleventh Amendment bars enforcement 4

of the subpoena, and that the subpoena violates the privacy rights of the jurors. Neither

contention has merit.

“The Eleventh Amendment provides:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to

extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted

against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by

Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

U.S. Const. amend. XI. The Supreme Court has held that the Eleventh Amendment bars a citizen

from bringing a suit against his own state in federal court. Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 10

S.Ct. 504, 33 L.Ed. 842 (1890).” Micomonaco v. State of Wash., 45 F.3d 316, 319 (9th Cir.

1995).

There are two ‘well-established’ exceptions to the Eleventh

Amendment protection from suit. Atascadero State Hosp. v.

Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 238, 105 S.Ct. 3142, 3145, 87 L.Ed.2d 171

Case 2:04-cv-01856-JAM-JFM Document 53 Filed 09/06/07 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

 In Booth, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit noted that “[f]rom 5

the earliest times, Eleventh Amendment immunity has not prevented actions seeking a writ of

habeas corpus, whether the defendant be the sovereign itself, or some agent of the sovereign.

Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 455-56, 96 S.Ct. 2666, 2671, 49 L.Ed.2d 614 (1976); Frank

v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309, 331, 35 S.Ct. 582, 588-89, 59 L.Ed. 969 (1915); Ex Parte Royall, 117

U.S. 241, 249, 6 S.Ct. 734, 738-39, 29 L.Ed. 868 (1886).” Booth, at 144.

3

(1985). Congress can abrogate the Eleventh Amendment without

the consent of the states in certain instances or a state may waive

its immunity by consenting to suit in federal court. Id.; see also

Welch v. Texas Dept. of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468,

473-74, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 2945-46, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987)

(recognizing two exceptions to Eleventh Amendment bar).

Micomonaco, at 319. The United States Supreme Court has “noted . . . that in enacting the

habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Congress ‘implicitly authorized suit under Ex Parte

Young.’” Booth v. State of Maryland, 112 F.3d 139, 144 (4th Cir. 1997) (quoting Seminole

Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 75 n.17 (1996)). Thus, assuming arguendo that a non- 5

party subpoena to a state is a “suit” within the meaning of the Eleventh Amendment, that

amendment provides no protection from compliance with a subpoena issued in habeas corpus

proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

The Clerk also argues that the information sought by petitioner violates

established privacy rights of the jurors and implicates “genuine public safety concerns.” 

(Opposition to Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena Duces Tecum, filed August 28,

2007, at 8.) It is settled that trial jurors may provide relevant admissible testimony in habeas

corpus proceedings involving claims of juror misconduct. See, e.g., Lawson v. Borg, 60 F.3d

608, 610 (9th Cir. 1995). The concerns raised by the Clerk are properly addressed by a protective

order of the type by which petitioner, in his April 2, 2007 motion for leave to conduct discovery,

agreed to be bound.

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s August 14, 2007 motion to compel is granted;

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01856-JAM-JFM Document 53 Filed 09/06/07 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

2. Within twenty days from the date of this order the Clerk of the Sacramento

County Superior Court shall provide all documents responsive to the subpoena duces tecum

served by petitioner on July 23, 2007; 

3. The information provided to petitioner by the Clerk of the Court shall be used

only for purposes of this litigation and shall not be disclosed to petitioner, his family, friends or

associates, or to any other person except licensed private investigators working under counsel’s

direction, and any licensed private investigator to whom such information is provided shall also

be bound by the terms of this protective order;

4. Within twenty days from the date of this order the parties shall file and serve a

stipulation and proposed order identifying the individual(s) who should be named as

respondent(s) in this action; and

5. The status conference set in this matter for September 6, 2007 is continued to 

November 8, 2007.

DATED: September 5, 2007.

12; muha1856.mtcsdt

Case 2:04-cv-01856-JAM-JFM Document 53 Filed 09/06/07 Page 4 of 4