N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ALFRE D PAUL C ENTOFANTI III,

Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. DW IGHT W . NEVEN; ATTOR NEY GENER AL FOR THE STATE OF NEVADA, R e sponde nts-Appe lle e s. No. 20-16039 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-01080-JAD-PAL
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Je nnife r A. Dorse y , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d July

8, 2020 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : C LIFTON, D.M . FISHER , ** and M . SM ITH, C irc u it Judge s. Pe titione r Alfre d Pa

ul C e ntofa

nti III se e ks a

writ of m anda

m us dire c ting the fe de ra l distric t c o urt to orde r his re le a se from Ne va da sta

te prison pe nding e ithe r



# FIL ED
JUL 20 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble D. M ic h a e l Fishe r, Unite d Stat e s C irc uit Judge for the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Third C irc uit, sitting by de signa t ion.(i) a

de c i sion on his 28 U.S.C . § 2254 ha be a s pe tition or (ii) a

n e ffe c tive C OVID19 va c c ine . W e d e ny

the pe t ition.

“ The re m e dy

of m anda m us is a dra stic one .” Bauman v . U.S. Dist. C ourt , 557 F.2d 650, 654 (9th C ir. 1977). A pe titione r m ust de m o nstra

te “ e xc e ptiona l
c irc um s ta nc e s am ounting to a

judic ia l ‘ usurpa

tion of powe r.’ ” Id. (inte rna l quota t ion m arks a

n d c ita tion omitte d). To de t e rm ine whe the r m anda m us re lie f is
warran te d, we c onside r “ five spe c ific guide line s: (1) The pa rty se e king the writ ha s no othe r a de quat e m e ans, suc h a s a dire c t a ppe a l, to a

tta in the re l ie f he or she de sire s;” “ (2) The pe titione r will be dam a ge d or pre judic e d in a

wa y not
c orre c ta b le on a ppe a l. (This guide line is c lose ly re l ate d to the first.);” “ (3) The distric t c o urt’ s orde r is c le arly e rrone o us a s a

m atte r of la

w;” “ (4) The distric t
c ourt’ s orde r is a

n oft-re p e ate d e rror, or m a nife sts a pe rsiste nt disre g ard of the fe de ra l rule s;” and “ (5) The distric t c ourt’ s orde r ra ise s ne w a nd im porta nt proble m s, or issue s of la

wof first im

pre ssion.” Id. at

654–55 (c ita

tions omitte d). While “ [n] o t e ve ry

fa c tor ne e d be pre se nt a

t onc e . . . the a

bse n c e of the third fa c t or, c l e ar e rror, is dispositive .” Burlington N . & Santa Fe

Ry . C o. v . U.S. Dist. C ourt for Dist. of Mont. , 408 F.3d 1142, 1146 (9th C ir. 2005). To qua lify

for pre -de c isiona l re le a se from sta te prison pe nding a fe de ra l ha be a s pe tition, a

pe titione r m

ust show tha

t the ha be a s pe tition ha s a

high
2proba

b ility of suc c e ss a

nd tha t spe c ia l c irc um sta

nc e s justify

his re le a se . Se e Unite d State s v . Dade , 959 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th C ir. 2020) (“ the prisone r m ust show tha

t,

‘ i n a ddition to the

re be i ng substa

ntia l que stions pre se n te d by the a ppe a l, the re is
som e c irc um sta

nc e m aking this a

pplic ation e xc e ptiona l a

nd de se rving of spe c ia l tre atm e n t in theinte re sts of justic e ’ ” ) (quoting Aronson v . May , 85 S. C t. 3, 5 (1964)). S e e also Be n son v . State

of C al
. , 328 F.2d 159, 162 (9th C ir. 1964) (“ It would not be

a ppropria te for us a t this stage of the proc e e ding to e nla rge this pe titione r on ba il e ve n if we found tha t the a lle gations of his pet ition for ha be a s
c orpus m a de out a

c le ar c a se for his re le a se . Som e thing m ore tha n tha t is re quire d be fore we would be justifie d in gra nting ba il.” ). W e c onc lude tha

t the distric t c ourt did not c le arly e rr in holding tha

t C e ntofa n ti ha d not de m onstra

te d tha t his ha be a s pe tition m a de out a c le ar c a se for his re le a se . Afte r be ing c onvic te d of first-de g re e m urde r in Ne va da sta

te c ourt, he
se e k s ha be a s re lie f on the grounds tha t one of the jurors did not disc lose during voir dire tha

t she ha d onc e be e n c onvic te d of a fe lony . He argue s tha

t he r pa rtic i pation in the

jury viola te d his fe de ra l c onstitutiona l rights. Hepre viously
m a de this a

rgum e nt to theNe va da

Supre m e C ourt, whic h disa gre e d. The c ourt
c onc lude d tha

t while it a

ppe are d tha

t the juror ha d inte ntiona lly c onc e a le d he r fe lony sta tus, C e ntofa

nti ha d not shown tha

t he wa s pre

judic e d by

he r c o n duc t.
3This wa s be c a use the juror’ s two-de c a de s’ old fe lony c onvic tion— for obta ining prope rty in e xc ha n ge for a worthle s s c he c k—

wa s e n tire l y

unre late d to C e n tofa

nti’ s
m urde r c h arge . B e c a

u se of this la c k of pre

judic e , the c ourt c onc l ude d tha t C e ntofa n ti wa s not e ntitle d to a

ne w tria l unde r the Sixth Am e ndm e nt. Unde r the Antite rrorism and Effe c tive De ath Pe n a l ty Ac t (AEDPA), a

n
a pplic ation for a writ of ha be a s c orpus m ay

only be gran te d if the sta

te c ourt’ s
a djudic ation “ (1) re sulte d in a de c ision tha

t wa s c ontra

ry to, or involve d a

n
unre a s ona

ble a p plic ation of, c le arly

e sta blishe d Fe de ra l la

w, a s de te rm ine d by

the Supre m e C ourt of the Unite d State s ; or (2) re sulte d in a de c ision tha t wa s ba se d on
an unre a s ona

ble de te rm ination of thefa c ts in light of the e vide nc e pre se n te d in the Stat e c ourt proc e e ding.” 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d). In Mc Donough Pow e r Equip., Inc . v . Gre e nw ood , 464 U.S. 548, 556 (1984), the Supre m e C ourt e sta

blishe d whe n de fe nda

nts a re e ntitle d to a

ne w tria l due to a juror’ s c onc e a lm e nt. To obtain a ne wtria l “ in suc h a

situa tion, a pa rty m ust first de m onstra

te tha t a juror fa ile d to a

n swe r hone stly a

m at e ria l que stion on voir dire , and the n furthe r show tha t a c orre c t re sponse would ha ve provide d

a va l id ba sis for
a c ha lle nge for c a

use . The m otive s for c onc e a ling inform ation m ay va ry , but only those re a s ons tha

t a ffe c t a juror’ s im

pa rtia lity c an truly be sa id to a ffe c t the fa irne ss of a tria l.” Mc

Donough , 464 U.S. a

t 556.
4C ourts ha ve diffe re d a s to how to a pply the Mc

Donough te st, but our c ourt ha s re c e ntly

he ld tha t , for AEDPA purpose s, it is not “ unre a s ona

ble for [a ] sta

te
c ourt to c onc lude tha

t M c D onough a c c om

m odate s a pre judic e ana ly sis.” Sc ott v
. Arnold , __ F.3d __, No. 18-16761, 2020 W L 3408712, a

t *2 (9th C ir. June 22, 2020). Se e also Dy e r v . C alde ron , 151 F.3d 970, 973 (9th C ir. 1998) (c onstruing Mc D onough a s re quiring c ourts to “ de te rm i ne whe the r [a juror’ s] answe rs we re dishone st a

nd, if so, whe the r this unde rm ine d the im pa rtia lity of [the ] jury ” ). Thus, unde r Ninth C irc uit pre c e de nt, the Ne va da Supre m e C ourt wa s pe rm itte d to re quire
a pre judic e showing to ove

rturn a c onvic tion, a s it did in C e ntofa nti’ s c a se . M ore o ve r, it wa s pe rm itte d to hold tha t no pre judic e ha d be e n

shown. As a re sult, we c ann ot c onc lude tha t the fe de ra l distric t c ourt c le arly e rre d in de te rm i ning tha

t C e ntofa nti ha d not shown a

high like lihood tha

t his ha be a s pe tition would suc c e e d. For this re a son, though we unde rsta nd tha t C e ntofa nti ha s
a high-risk sta

tus for C OVID-19, we m

ust de ny his pe tition for m anda

m u s re lie f. Pe tition DE N IE D.

5