Case: 19-70020 Document: 00515193812 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/08/2019 No. 19-70020 IN THE United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit PATRICK HENRY MURPHY, JR., Plaintiff–Appellee, v. BRYAN COLLIER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE; LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION; BILLY LEWIS, WARDEN, Defendants–Appellants. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, Cause No. 4:19-CV-1106 MOTION TO VACATE STAY OF EXECUTION KEN PAXTON GWENDOLYN S. VINDELL Attorney General of Texas Assistant Attorney General Counsel of Record JEFFREY C. MATEER First Assistant Attorney General MATTHEW OTTOWAY Assistant Attorney General MARK PENLEY Deputy Attorney General P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station For Criminal Justice Austin, Texas 78711 (512) 936-1400 EDWARD L. MARSHALL [email protected] Chief, Criminal Appeals Division Counsel for Defendants–Appellants Case: 19-70020 Document: 00515193812 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/08/2019 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS The undersigned counsel of record certifies that the following listed persons and entities as described in the fourth sentence of Rule 28.2.1 have an interest in the outcome of this case. These representations are made in order that the judges of this court may evaluate possible disqualification or recusal. Defendants–Appellants Bryan Collier, Executive Director Lorie Davis, Director, Correctional Institutions Division Billy Lewis, Senior Warden, Huntsville Unit TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE Counsel for Defendants–Appellants Gwendolyn S. Vindell, Assistant Attorney General Matthew Ottoway, Assistant Attorney General OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS Plaintiff–Appellee Patrick Henry Murphy, Jr. Counsel for Plaintiff–Appellee David R. Dow Jeffrey R. Newberry UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON LAW CENTER s/ Gwendolyn S. Vindell GWENDOLYN S. VINDELL Assistant Attorney General Counsel of Record Counsel for Defendants–Appellants i Case: 19-70020 Document: 00515193812 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/08/2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS ......................................... i TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................... ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................... iv MOTION TO VACATE STAY OF EXECUTION ..................................... 1 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .......................................................... 3 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE ................................................................. 3 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................. 3 I. Murphy’s Offense and Postconviction Challenges .......................... 3 II. The Litigation Preceding His First Execution Setting .................... 4 III. The Course of Murphy’s Present Lawsuit ....................................... 5 STANDARD OF REVIEW......................................................................... 9 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................. 9 I. The Standard Governing Stay Requests. ........................................ 9 II. The District Court Abused its Discretion in Granting a Stay Because Murphy Has Failed to Exercise Due Diligence. .............. 11 III. The District Court Abused Its Discretion in Granting a Stay of Execution Because Murphy Has Not Demonstrated a Likelihood of Success on the Merits of his Claims. ....................... 14 A. Murphy cannot establish any likelihood of success because the claim is unexhausted and untimely.................. 16 1. Murphy’s claim is unexhausted. .................................. 17 2. Murphy’s claim is untimely. ........................................ 20 B. Murphy has not established a likelihood of success on the substance of his claim. .................................................... 22 1. Factual disputes do not meet the burden of proof necessary to warrant a stay of a just and proper execution. ..................................................................... 23 2. Murphy’s claim is without merit because he fails to meet the remaining factors under the Turner test. ............. 26 ii Case: 19-70020 Document: 00515193812 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/08/2019 IV. The Balance of Equities Favor the State, and The Public’s Interest Lies in The Timely Administration of Justice. ................ 30 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 31 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................. 32 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ........................................................ 32 ELECTRONIC CASE FILING CERTIFICATIONS ............................... 33 CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE ....................................................... 33 iii Case: 19-70020 Document: 00515193812 Page: 5 Date Filed: 11/08/2019 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page Adams v. Thaler, 679 F.3d 312 (5th Cir. 2012) ........................................ 9 Am. Legion v. Am. Humanist Ass’n, 139 S. Ct. 2067 (2019) ............ 22, 23 Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521 (2006) ...................................................... 23 Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001) ............................................. 17, 18 Buntion v. Quarterman, 524 F.3d 664 (5th Cir. 2008) ............................. 9 Filer v. Donley, 690 F.3d 643 (5th Cir. 2012) ............................................ 9 Gomez v. U.S. Dist. Ct. N. Dist. Cal., 503 U.S. 653 (1992) ..................... 14 Harris v. Johnson, 376 F.3d 414 (5th Cir. 2004) .................................... 13 Hernandez v. Comm’r, 490 U.S. 680 (1989) ............................................ 22 Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573 (2006)......................................... passim Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) ................................................... 17, 18 Kincy v. Livingston, 173 F. App’x 341 (5th Cir. 2006) ............................ 13 Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228 (1982) ............................................. 22, 23 Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) ......................................... 22, 23 Martel v. Clair, 565 U.S. 648 (2012) ....................................................... 30 Moussazadeh v. Tex. Dep’t of Justice, 703 F.3d 781 (5th Cir. 2012) ...... 17 Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637 (2004) ................................................ 17 Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) ........................................... 10, 24, 25 Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002) ...................................................... 17 Ray v. Comm’r, Ala. Dep’t of Corr., 915 F.3d 689 (11th Cir. 2019) ........ 30 Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000) .......................... 22 Sepulvado v. Jindal, 729 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2013) ................................. 10 Summers v. Tex. Dep’t Criminal Justice, 206 F. App’x 317 (5th Cir. 2006) ..................................................................................................... 13 Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Just. v. Levin, 572 S.W.3d 671 (2019) ..................... 28 Thorne v. Jones, 765 F.2d 1270 (5th Cir. 1985) ...................................... 27 iv Case: 19-70020 Document: 00515193812 Page: 6 Date Filed: 11/08/2019 Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) ........................................... 23, 26, 29 Walker v. Epps, 550 F.3d 407 (5th Cir. 2008) ................................... 20, 21 Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985) .................................................... 20 Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) ...................................................... 17 Wright v. Hollingsworth, 260 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2001) .......................... 18 Statutes Page 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a) .................................................................................... 3 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .............................................................................. passim Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 16.003(a) ....................................... 21 Tex. Code of Crim. Pro. art. 43.14 ........................................................... 28 U.S. Const. amend. I, cl. 1 ....................................................................... 22 v Case: 19-70020 Document: 00515193812 Page: 7 Date Filed: 11/08/2019 MOTION TO VACATE STAY OF EXECUTION Plaintiff–Appellee, Patrick Henry Murphy, Jr., a member of the notorious “Texas Seven” and under a sentence of death, was scheduled to be executed after 6:00 PM CDT on November 13, 2019. Murphy had previously been scheduled to be executed on March 28, 2019, but two days prior to his first executing setting, Murphy filed suit against Defendants– Appellants (TDCJ) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), generally alleging religious practice endorsements or impediments. Murphy also filed an accompanying motion for stay of execution. Both the district court and this Court declined to exercise their discretion to stay his execution, but the Supreme Court partially granted Murphy’s motion, allowing his execution to proceed only if TDCJ allowed a Buddhist spiritual advisor to be present inside the execution chamber. TDCJ declined this condition, and Murphy was not executed. TDCJ thereafter amended its execution procedure, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s suggestion, to permit only TDCJ security personnel inside the execution chamber.