Court Opinion

ID: 9352614
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-09 00:00:39.948511+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:58:01.384546
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-20439         Document: 00516601265             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/06/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                        United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit

                                                                                        FILED
                                                                                 January 6, 2023
                                         No. 21-20439
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                       Clerk

   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:*
          Ricky Dockery is an African American male who worked for the Texas
   Department of Criminal Justice (“TDCJ”) for more than thirty years. In
   2018, Dockery sued TDCJ in the United States District Court for the
   Southern District of Texas, alleging TDCJ refused to promote him due to
   racial discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C § 1981 and Title VII of the Civil
   Rights Act of 1964. After a trial, the jury returned a verdict for TDCJ.

          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 21-20439      Document: 00516601265           Page: 2   Date Filed: 01/06/2023

                                     No. 21-20439

   Dockery moved for a new trial and attached an affidavit from one of the
   jurors. The district court denied Dockery’s motion.
          Dockery presented only one issue to this court on appeal when this
   case was first before us. It was that the district court should have conducted
   an evidentiary hearing to determine whether extrinsic evidence influenced
   the jury. The influence was allegedly shown in an affidavit from one of the
   jurors. The affiant swore that another juror informed everyone during their
   deliberations that the latter’s wife (who was not on the jury) gave her opinion,
   as part of discussing the trial, of “how important a ‘management pipeline’
   was to an employer,” and that his wife’s opinion made him “inclined to vote
   in favor of TDCJ.”
          We interpreted the juror statement as potentially meaning someone
   not on the jury provided information that affected a juror’s decision. Dockery
   v. Texas Dep’t of Crim. Just., No. 21-20439, 2022 WL 3097849, at *3 (5th Cir.
   Aug. 3, 2022). Thus, Dockery had made a sufficient showing of a possible
   outside influence on the jury’s verdict, and the district court needed to take
   evidence on that allegation. Id. We remanded for the district court to
   conduct an evidentiary hearing and make findings as to whether a juror
   discussed the case with his wife after the trial began. Id. at *3–4.
          On remand, the district court called two jurors to testify under oath at
   an evidentiary hearing. During questioning, the juror who allegedly spoke to
   his wife about the trial unequivocally denied having done so. He also denied
   sharing any thoughts from her with the jury. The district court found his
   testimony “to be clear, credible and convincing.” In contrast, the court
   found that the juror whose affidavit contained the statement that caused us
   to remand was not credible. In making this finding, the district court relied
   on her repeated claims of memory lapses regarding the details of her
   allegations, her conflating the jury’s discussion of arguments presented at

                                          2
Case: 21-20439     Document: 00516601265          Page: 3   Date Filed: 01/06/2023

                                   No. 21-20439

   trial with the discussion of what the other juror allegedly stated about his
   wife’s opinion, and her inability to identify the juror she alleged made the
   statements. Accordingly, the court found no such conversation had occurred
   between a juror and his wife, the one juror’s affidavit was not an accurate
   description of what occurred, and there was no improper extrinsic influence
   on the jury.
          The district court’s findings are clearly supported by the evidence.
   The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                        3