Glossip v. Chandler

• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma
• Writing for the Court: STEPHEN P. FRIOT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
• Citation: Glossip v. Chandler, 554 F.Supp.3d 1176 (W.D. Okla. 2021)
• Decision Date: 11 August 2021
• Docket Number: Case No. CIV-14-0665-F
• Parties: Richard GLOSSIP, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Randy CHANDLER, et al., Defendants.

554 F.Supp.3d 1176

Richard GLOSSIP, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.Randy CHANDLER, et al., Defendants.

Case No. CIV-14-0665-F

United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma.

Signed August 11, 2021

Adam Singer, Pro Hac Vice, Crowell & Moring LLP, Washington, DC, Emma V. Rolls, Michael W. Lieberman, Federal Public Defender, Patti P. Ghezzi, Patti Palmer Ghezzi Law, David B. Autry, Oklahoma City, OK, Harry P. Cohen, Pro Hac Vice, James K. Stronski, Pro Hac Vice, Michael K. Robles, Pro Hac Vice, Crowell & Moring LLP, New York, NY, Pilar R. Stillwater, Pro Hac Vice, Crowell & Moring LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff James A. Coddington.

Dale A. Baich, Pro Hac Vice, Federal Public Defender, Phoenix, AZ, Adam Singer, Pro Hac Vice, Crowell & Moring LLP, Washington, DC, Emma V. Rolls, Michael W. Lieberman, Federal Public Defender, Patti P. Ghezzi, Patti Palmer Ghezzi Law, Oklahoma City, OK, Harry P. Cohen, Pro Hac Vice, James K. Stronski, Pro Hac Vice, Michael K. Robles, Pro Hac Vice, Crowell & Moring LLP, New York, NY, Pilar R. Stillwater, Pro Hac Vice, Crowell & Moring LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiffs Benjamin R. Cole, John M. Grant, Tremane Wood.

Adam Singer, Pro Hac Vice, Crowell & Moring LLP, Washington, DC, Emma V. Rolls, Michael W. Lieberman, Federal Public Defender, Patti P. Ghezzi, Patti Palmer Ghezzi Law, Oklahoma City, OK, Harry P. Cohen, Pro Hac Vice, James K. Stronski, Pro Hac Vice, Michael K. Robles, Pro Hac Vice, Crowell & Moring LLP, New York, NY, Pilar R. Stillwater, Pro Hac Vice, Crowell & Moring LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiffs Carlos Cuesta-Rodriguez, Richard S. Fairchild, Wendell A. Grissom, Marlon D. Harmon, Raymond E. Johnson, Emmanuel A. Littlejohn, James D. Pavatt, Kendrick A. Simpson, Kevin R. Underwood, Alfred B. Mitchell.

Mark L. Henricksen, Henricksen & Henricksen Lawyers Inc., Emma V. Rolls, Michael W. Lieberman, Federal Public Defender, Patti P. Ghezzi, Patti Palmer Ghezzi Law, Oklahoma City, OK, Adam Singer, Pro Hac Vice, Crowell & Moring LLP, Washington, DC, Harry P. Cohen, Pro Hac Vice, James K. Stronski, Pro Hac Vice, Michael K. Robles, Pro Hac Vice, Crowell & Moring LLP, New York, NY, Pilar R. Stillwater, Pro Hac Vice, Crowell & Moring LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff Brenda E. Andrew.

Dale A. Baich, Pro Hac Vice, Federal Public Defender, Jennifer M. Moreno, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Phoenix, AZ, Mark L. Henricksen, Henricksen & Henricksen Lawyers Inc., Emma V. Rolls, Michael W. Lieberman, Federal Public Defender, Patti P. Ghezzi, Patti Palmer Ghezzi Law, Oklahoma City, OK, Adam Singer, Pro Hac Vice, Crowell & Moring LLP, Washington, DC, Harry P. Cohen, Pro Hac Vice, James K. Stronski, Pro Hac Vice, Michael K. Robles, Pro Hac Vice, Crowell & Moring LLP, New York, NY, Pilar R. Stillwater, Pro Hac Vice, Crowell & Moring LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff Richard E. Glossip.

Emma V. Rolls, Michael W. Lieberman, Federal Public Defender, Lanita Henricksen, Henricksen & Henricksen Lawyers Inc., Patti P. Ghezzi, Patti Palmer Ghezzi Law, David B. Autry, Oklahoma City, OK, Adam Singer, Pro Hac Vice, Crowell & Moring LLP, Washington, DC, Alexander L. Kursman, Lynne Leonard, Federal Community Defender Office, Philadelphia, PA, Harry P. Cohen, Pro Hac Vice, James K. Stronski, Pro Hac Vice, Michael K. Robles, Pro Hac Vice, Crowell & Moring LLP, New York, NY, Pilar R. Stillwater, Pro Hac Vice, Crowell & Moring LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff Phillip D. Hancock.

Mark H. Barrett, Mark H. Barrett Law Office, Norman, OK, Adam Singer, Pro Hac Vice, Crowell & Moring LLP, Washington, DC, Emma V. Rolls, Michael W. Lieberman, Federal Public Defender, Patti P. Ghezzi, Patti Palmer Ghezzi Law, Oklahoma City, OK, Harry P. Cohen, Pro Hac Vice, James K. Stronski, Pro Hac Vice, Michael K. Robles, Pro Hac Vice, Crowell & Moring LLP, New York, NY, Pilar R. Stillwater, Pro Hac Vice, Crowell & Moring LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff Julius D. Jones.

Adam Singer, Pro Hac Vice, Crowell & Moring LLP, Washington, DC, Emma V. Rolls, Michael W. Lieberman, Federal Public Defender, Oklahoma City, OK, Pilar R. Stillwater, Pro Hac Vice, Crowell & Moring LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiffs Ronson Kyle Bush, Donald Anthony Grant, Scott Eizember, John F. Hanson, Mica Alexander Martinez, Ricky Ray Malone, Jimmy Dean Harris, Clarance Goode, Anthony Sanchez, Gilbert Ray Postelle, Michael Dewayne Smith, James Ryder, Richard Rojem, Jemaine Cannon.

Wade Lay, McAlester, OK, Pro Se.

Andy N. Ferguson, Bryan G. Cleveland, Mithun S. Mansinghani, Randall J. Yates, Zachary P. West, Charles A. Dickson, III, Attorney General's Office, Oklahoma City, OK, for Defendants Scott Crow, Randy Chandler, Betty Gesell, Joseph Griffin, F. Lynn Haueter, Kathryn A. LaFortune, Stephan Moore, Calvin Prince, T. Hastings Siegfried, Daryl Woodard, Tommy Sharp, Aboutanaa El Habti, Justin Farris, Michael Carpenter, Justin Giudice.

ORDER

STEPHEN P. FRIOT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the court is defendants’ motion for summary judgment, doc. no. 388. By this order, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.

This action challenges Oklahoma's execution protocol under the United States Constitution, the Oklahoma Constitution and other laws. It is brought by inmates who have been sentenced to death by the State of Oklahoma. Defendants are state actors, sued in their official capacities only, who are charged with carrying out the death sentences. The case has already been before the Supreme Court, but that was at the preliminary injunction stage and involved an earlier version of Oklahoma's lethal injection protocol. On October 16, 2015, a few months after the Supreme Court's ruling on June 29, 2015 affirming denial of plaintiffs’ motion to preliminarily enjoin executions, this action was administratively closed, by agreement, for an indefinite period. The purpose of the closure was to permit the state to investigate and amend its execution procedures. This action was reopened on March 19, 2020. On July 6, 2020, a Third Amended Complaint was filed, challenging the state's new protocol. Certain counts of the Third Amended Complaint were dismissed by the court on a motion to dismiss. The remaining counts are challenged by the motion for summary judgment which is now before the court.

A. Procedural History

Including doc. no. 392, which was stricken, and doc. no. 397, which is moot because it replied to doc. no. 392, the motion for summary judgment resulted in the following filings:

 Date filed Doc. Filed by Name of Document
                No
                  2-19-21        388     Defendants     Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and
                                                        Brief in Support
                  3-19-21        392     Plaintiffs     Opposition of plaintiffs (other than Wade Lay) to
                                                        Defendants' Summary Judgment Motion (stricken,1
                                                        along with doc. nos. 393 and 394)
                  3-26-21        397     Defendants     Reply in Support of Defendants' Motion for
                                                        Summary Judgment (superseded by doc. no. 433)
                  5-7-21         422     Defendants     Defendants' Supplemental Brief in Support of Their
                                                        Motion for Summary Judgment
                  5-14-21        425     Plaintiffs     Opposition of Plaintiffs (other than Wade Lay) to
                                                        Defendants' Summary Judgment Motion
                  5-27-21        433     Defendants     Reply in Support of Defendants' Motion for
                                                        Summary Judgment
                

[Editor's Note: The preceding image contains the reference for footnote¹ ].

B. Plaintiffs’ Claims

In their Third Amended Complaint, doc. no. 325, filed on July 6, 2020, plaintiffs asserted the following claims:

  Count I        Fifth2 Amendment Due Process claim based on asserted failure to disclose
                                 sufficient information re: development of the protocol and execution procedures
                                 Dismissed per order at doc. no. 349
                  Count II       Eighth Amendment claim asserting that constitutionally impermissible pain and
                                 suffering will result from the use of the three-drug lethal injection protocol
                                 (midazolam, vecuronium bromide and potassium chloride)
                  Count III      Eighth and Fifth3 Amendment claim asserting "deliberate indifference" to the
                                 serious medical needs of the plaintiffs. Dismissed per order at doc. no. 349
                  Count IV       First, Fifth4 and Sixth Amendment claim asserting unconstitutional denial of
                                 access to counsel and the courts.
                  Count V        18 U.S.C. § 3599 claim asserting intentional deprivation of right to counsel.
                  Count VI       Ex Post Facto claim under U.S. and Oklahoma Constitutions, based on
                                 substitution of midazolam.
                  Count VII      Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claim based on use of midazolam instead of
                                 barbiturate.
                  Count VIII     Religious freedom claim asserting violation of plaintiffs' sincerely-held religious
                                 beliefs resulting from necessity of proposing a feasible alternative method of
                                 execution. Dismissed per order at doc. no. 349.
                  Count IX       Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claim asserting that plaintiffs will be subjected
                                 to constitutionally impermissible human experimentation.
                  Count X        First and Fourteenth Amendment claim asserting denial of right of access to
                                 governmental information.
                

[Editor's Note: The preceding image contains the reference for footnotes^{2 ,3 ,4} ].

C. Summary Judgment Standard

Under Rule 56, Fed. R. Civ. P., summary judgment shall be granted if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). A genuine issue of material fact exists when "there is sufficient evidence...