United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-20439

Ricky Dockery, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, 

Defendant—Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:18-CV-966

Before King, Elrod, and Southwick, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

A jury reached a verdict in favor of the Texas Department of Criminal 

Justice (“TDCJ”), rejecting claims of racial discrimination brought by an

employee, Ricky Dockery. Dockery appealed. Before ruling on his appeal, 

we ordered the district court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to address 

Dockery’s allegation of improper outside influence on the jury. Dockery v. 

Texas Dep’t of Crim. Just., No. 21-20439, 2022 WL 3097849, at *3–4 (5th 

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. The 

opinion supplements the court’s opinion in this case of January 6, 2023.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 19, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-20439 Document: 00516826741 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/19/2023
No. 21-20439

2

Cir. Aug. 3, 2022). After the hearing uncovered no evidence of such 

influence, we affirmed the judgment. Dockery v. Texas Dep’t of Crim. Just., 

No. 21-20439, 2023 WL 119641, at *1 (5th Cir. Jan. 6, 2023). Dockery now 

argues that the district court’s fact-findings were in error. 

We begin with a summary of our earlier order that identified the 

factual issue the district court was to explore. Post-verdict, a juror signed an 

affidavit alleging that another juror informed everyone during deliberations 

that the latter’s wife gave her opinion about why TDCJ’s failure to promote 

Dockery was not discriminatory. The affidavit asserted that the juror quoted 

his wife as saying “how important a ‘management pipeline’ was to an 

employer,” implying that promoting those in the pipeline, which Dockery 

was not in, was reasonable. On remand, the district court conducted an 

evidentiary hearing. It found that no juror had discussed such a conversation 

during deliberations, that the one juror’s affidavit was not an accurate 

description of what occurred, and that there was no improper extrinsic 

influence on the jury. We then affirmed the district court’s judgment that 

upheld the jury’s verdict. 

After our decision, Dockery has argued that the district court 

identified the wrong juror as the one who allegedly discussed the trial with 

his wife. That argument caused us to have the parties explain how the former 

jurors who would be questioned were identified. The parties agree that the 

district court allowed each party to select the witnesses who would provide 

testimony at the hearing. In order to identify witnesses, the district court 

provided the parties with the original jury questionnaires consisting of the 

jurors’ names, marital statuses, and professions. According to Dockery (the 

record does not contain the questionnaires), the jury questionnaires showed 

there were three male jurors on the jury and that each was married. TDCJ 

requested the district court query a specific male juror. Dockery did not seek 

to have any additional male juror questioned, but he did request that the 

Case: 21-20439 Document: 00516826741 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/19/2023
No. 21-20439

3

former female juror who signed the affidavit that started this inquiry also be 

called to testify. Further, the district court had each counsel submit

questions they wanted the court to ask.

At the hearing, the district court questioned the two jurors. The male 

juror denied that he spoke to his wife about the trial. After the court 

completed questioning that juror, it asked counsel if there were any further 

questions. There were none. 

The affiant juror testified next. She stated that the other juror at the 

hearing was not the one who commented on a discussion with his wife. The 

affiant gave a physical description of the juror who allegedly had made the 

statements. Further, in describing the juror, the affiant testified that “[h]e 

was also the juror who I think we couldn’t continue the trial on Friday, 

because he had somewhere to be, so we had to leave early for him.” TDCJ’s 

attorney then informed the court that the first juror questioned, the one who 

denied having made the relevant statements, was the one who had the trip:

“He actually had a conversation with the Court about a trip where he had to 

fly to Las Vegas that evening, and we cut court short on Friday so that he 

could make that trip.” The affiant responded, “I don’t remember.” The 

affiant stated “I don’t remember” or “I don’t [] recall” several times in 

responding to questions. She did remember that the juror who spoke to his 

wife was named “Christian,” but there was no juror named Christian. One 

of the trial attorneys for TDCJ, though, was named Christian.

We required the evidentiary hearing so the parties could present 

witnesses on the claim. One juror provided evidence in support, but the only 

juror who was questioned on whether he made such statements denied 

having done so. Our order did not limit the number of former jurors to be 

questioned, nor does the record indicate the district court limited the parties 

to selecting only one witness each. We see nothing in the description of the 

Case: 21-20439 Document: 00516826741 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/19/2023
No. 21-20439

4

procedures the district court followed that would have prevented Dockery

from, for example, seeking the testimony of all three male, married jurors.

The district court provided Dockery a reasonable opportunity to 

develop a record of what had occurred during jury deliberations. There was 

no clear error in the district court’s finding that the affiant-juror’s allegations 

lacked credibility, and there was no other evidence to support the claim about 

outside influence. We will not grant another opportunity for the facts to be 

developed.

The judgment of the district court rejecting Dockery’s claims of 

discrimination is AFFIRMED. The mandate of the court shall issue 

immediately.

Case: 21-20439 Document: 00516826741 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/19/2023