N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N
UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT

NENG SAYPAO PHA,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,

v. GAR Y SW AR THOUT, W

AR DEN,
De fe nda n t-Appe l le e
. No. 15-16028
D.C . No. 2:13-c v-01133-M C EGGH

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia M orrison Engla

nd, Jr., C hie f Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d July

6, 2016 Sa n Fra n c isc o , C a lifornia
B e fore : B ER

ZON, a nd N.R

. SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a nd ZOUHAR Y, * * Distric t Judge

. The distric t c ourt did not e rr in de ny ing N e ng Pha ha be a s re lie f. The prim a ry issue on a ppe a l is w he the r the distric t c ourt e rre d i n de ny ing Pha ’ s c la im tha t the sta te 

# FIL ED

AUG 01 2016
M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is no t ap p r o p r iate for public a tion a nd is not pre c e de n t e xc e pt a s provide d by

Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

** The H o no r ab l e J ack Z o uh ar y, U n i ted S t at es Di s tr i ct Ju d ge f o r the Northe rn Distric t of Ohio, sitting by de signa tion.c ourt unre a sona bly de nie d him juror inform a t ion to e xplore a possible c la im of juror bia s , the re by de ny ing him a m e a ningful e vide ntia ry h e a ring re g a

rding suc h bia s. W e

a ffirm

. 1. In a post-tria l e m a il from a juror to the pr ose c utor, t he juror

c om plim e nte d him on his tria l pre se nta tion. The prose c utor sha re d the e m a il with the

c ourt a nd de fe nse c ounse l. Subse que ntly , def en se p et itione d for disc losure of the jurors’ a ddre sse s a nd te le phone num be rs for disc ove ry purpose s i n a ntic ipa tion of a n

e vide ntia ry he a ring for juror m isc onduc t a nd/or a m otion for a ne w tria l. Pursua nt to C al

. Co de Ci v . P ro. § 237, the sta te c ourt he ld a he a ring on the pe tition a nd, in its disc re tion, de nie d the pe t ition. The c ourt de te rm ine d tha t the p e t itione r ha d not m a de

a prim a fa c ie good c a

use showing of juror m isc ond uc t. The tria l c ourt spe c ific a lly found no proof tha t the juror ignore d e vide nc e , tha t she fa ile d t o de libe ra te , tha t she ha d a bia s tha t wa s undisc lose d, or tha t she ha d a bia s e ithe r for the vic tim or a ga inst the d e fe n da

nt t ha t rose to the le v el so tha t she c ould n ot fa irly a nd o bje c tive ly c o nside r the e vide nc e a nd pa rtic ipa te in de libe ra tions with the othe r jurors. The C a lifornia C ourt o f Appe a l a ffirm e d, finding tha t the sta te c ourt re a sona

bly

c onc lude d t

ha t t he e m a il, while “ unusua l,” did not sugge st t he juror im

prope rly sha

re d he r fe e lings with othe

r jurors or ha

rbore d a bia s towa

rd Pha

.

2Pha ’ s pe tition fa ils for two re a sons. F i r s t and fore m ost, Pha wa s not e ntitle d

unde r c le a rly e stab l i s he d fe de ra l la w e ithe r to juror c onta c t i nform a tion or to a n

e vide ntiar y hear i ng o n his c la i m of j uror m isc onduc t. Pha ide ntifie s no Supre m e C ourt de c ision a ddre ssing a de fe nda n t ’ s e ntitle m e n t to writte n disc ove ry upon
sugge s tion of juror m isc onduc t. Inste a d, he a ppe a rs to a rgue , a s he did be fore the sta te

c ourts, tha t a Re mme r -ty

pe h e a ring is use le ss without pre -he a ring disc ove ry
. Thus, to the e x te nt he a rgue s the sta te c ourt w r o n g ly d e nie d him jurors’ a ddre sse s a nd phone

num be rs, tha t de c ision wa s n ot c ontra ry to or a n unre a sona

b le a pplic a tion of c le a rly

e sta blishe d fe de ra l la

w. Se e W

hite v
. W ood all , 134 S. C t. 1697, 1706 (2014) (“ ‘ [I] f

a ha be a s c ourt m

ust e xte nd a ra tiona l e be fore it c a n a pply to t h e f

act s at ha nd,’ the n by de finition the ra tiona le wa s not ‘ c le a rly e sta blishe d a t the tim e of the sta te -c ourt de c ision.’ ” (quoting Yarborough v . Alv arado , 541 U.S. 652, 666 (2004))). Furthe r, this C o urt ha s re pe a t e dly h e l d tha t “ Re m me r a nd Smith do not sta nd for the p roposition t

ha t a ny tim e e vide nc e of j uror bia s co m es to light, due proc e ss

re qui r es t he tria l c ourt to que stion the jurors a lle ge d to ha ve bia s.” Trac e y v
. Palmate e r , 341 F

. 3d 1037, 1 044 (9th C ir. 2003). C ontra ry to Pha ’ s sugge stion,

“ [n] e ithe r c a se m a nda te s a h e a ring whe ne ve r ev i den ce of juror bia s is ra ise d.” Sims

v
. R ow land , 414 F.3d 1148, 1153 (9th C ir. 2 005). “ R a the r, in de te rm ining whe the r

a h e a ring m

ust be he ld, the c ourt m

ust c o nside r the c onte nt of the a lle ga ti o n s , t h e

3se riousne ss of the a lle ge d m isc onduc t or b ia s, a nd t he c re d ibility of the s o urc e .”
Trac e y , 341 F.3d a t 1044 (inte rna l quota tion m a rks om itte d). T ha t is pre c i se ly wha t the sta te t ria l c ourt did. The c ourt h e ld a he a ring on Pha ’ s pe t ition a nd de c ide d his

c la im de se rve d n o en c o ura g e m e nt to go furthe r; c le a rly e s ta blishe d fe de ra l l a w

re quire s nothing m ore
. S e e Sims , 341 F.3d a

t 1045.
Se c ond, the sta

te c ourts re a sona

bly c onc lude d tha t the e m a i l did not sugge st the juror im prope rly sha re d he r fe e lings with the

othe r jurors or ha

rbore d a bia s towa

rds Pha

. The Supre m e C ourt re c ogniz e s juror im pa rtia lity as an issue “ e nc om pa ssing

m ore tha n ‘ ba sic , p rim a

ry , or historic a l fa c ts,’ ” whose “ re solution de p e nds he a vily o n the tria l c ourt’ s a

ppra isa l of w itne ss c re dibility a nd de m e a nor.” Thompson v
. K e ohane , 5 1 6 U

. S

. 99, 111 (1995). Ac c o rdingly , the “ sta te c ourt’ s de te rm ina tion tha t a c la im la c ks m e rit pre c lude s fe de ra l ha be a s re lie f so long a s ‘ fa irm inde d j urists c ould disa gre e ’ on the c orre c tne s s of t he sta te c ourt’ s de c ision.” Harrington v
. Ritc he r , 562 U.S. 86, 101 (2011).
2. The e vide nc e Pha se e k s to a dduc e is b a rre d in a n y e ve nt by Fe de ra l Evide n c e R

ule 606(b). A juror’ s pe rsona l history doe s not fa l l with i n an y o f Rule 606(b)’ s e xc e ptions be c a

use it de rive s not from

“ a sourc e ‘ e x t e rna l’ to the jury ,” but from “ ‘ inte rna l’ m a tte rs inc lud[ing] the ge ne ra l body of e x p e rien ces th a t j urors a re unde rstood to bring with the m into the jury room .” W arge r v
. Shaue rs , 135 S. C t.

4521, 52 9 ( 2 0 1 4)

. T hus, e v e n we re Pha gra n te d a n e vide ntia ry he a ring, h e would be ba rre d from e xploring whe the r the juror sha re d h e r fe e lings in the

de libe ra tion room

a nd wha t e ffe c t a ny disc losure m ight ha

ve ha d on the jury

. AFFIRM E D.

5Pha v . Sw arthout , No. 15-16028

B e rz on, C irc uit Judge , c o nc urring:
I c onc u r in Pa

ra g ra ph 2 of the m e m ora ndum disposition a nd so in the judgm e nt.



# FIL ED

AUG 01 2016
M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

1