Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_02-cv-00358/USCOURTS-azd-2_02-cv-00358-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

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 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Richard Kenneth Djerf, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

No. CV-02-00358-PHX-JAT

DEATH PENALTY CASE 

ORDER 

 Before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Issue Subpoena. (Doc. 117.) 

Petitioner seeks access to “sealed psychological reports” concerning his now-deceased 

post-conviction counsel. (Id.) Respondents oppose the motion. (Do. 120.) 

 On remand from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, this Court must reconsider, in 

light of Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012), Petitioner’s claims of ineffective 

assistance of trial and appellate counsel. Petitioner asserts that access to the confidential 

psychological reports is necessary to “support his assertion that [post-conviction counsel] 

suffered a psychotic break while representing him and that, as a result, she was unable to 

provide minimally competent representation to him in his capital state post-conviction 

proceedings.” (Doc. 117 at 4.) 

Case 2:02-cv-00358-JAT Document 123 Filed 02/12/15 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

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 

27 

28 

 Habeas petitioners are not entitled to discovery as a matter of ordinary course. 

Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997). Instead, a petitioner must demonstrate 

“good cause” for the discovery under Rule 6, foll. 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 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.” Id. at 908–09. Petitioner cannot make such a showing with respect to postconviction counsel’s sealed psychological records. 

 In Martinez, the Supreme Court held that “[i]nadequate assistance of counsel at 

initial-review collateral proceedings may establish cause for a prisoner’s procedural 

default of a claim of ineffective assistance at trial.” 132 S. Ct. at 1315. Under Martinez, a 

federal habeas court may consider a prisoner’s procedurally defaulted ineffective 

assistance of trial counsel claim if he establishes (1) that his state post-conviction counsel 

was constitutionally ineffective under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), in 

failing to raise the ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim in state court, and (2) that 

the unraised claim is substantial. Id. at 1318. Martinez does not establish a stand-alone 

right to effective assistance of post-conviction counsel. 

 Applying Strickland to post-conviction counsel’s performance “calls for an 

inquiry into the objective reasonableness of counsel’s performance, not counsel’s 

subjective state of mind.” Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770, 790 (2011); see 

Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688 (proving deficient performance requires a showing “that 

counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness”). The 

information contained in post-conviction counsel’s sealed psychological records is not 

Case 2:02-cv-00358-JAT Document 123 Filed 02/12/15 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

27 

28 

relevant to an objective assessment of her performance. The question is not counsel’s 

mental state, but whether the choices she made in representing Petitioner were 

objectively reasonable. See, e.g., Babbitt v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 1170, 1173 (9th Cir. 

1998). 

 Petitioner has not established good cause for the requested discovery. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED denying Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Issue Subpoena. 

(Doc. 117.) 

 Dated this 12th day of February, 2015. 

Case 2:02-cv-00358-JAT Document 123 Filed 02/12/15 Page 3 of 3