Gonzales v. Collier
| Decision Date | 05 July 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 4:21-cv-00828 |
| Citation | 610 F.Supp.3d 963 |
| Parties | Ramiro Felix GONZALES, Plaintiff, v. Bryan COLLIER, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
Michael William Kawi, Federal Defender's Office, Dallas, TX, Jeremy Don Schepers, Federal Public Defender, Dallas, TX, Steven T. Collis, Clinical Professor Law and Religion Clinic, Austin, TX, for Plaintiff.
Jessica Lauren Weltge, Leah Jean O'Leary, Office of the Texas Attorney General, Law Enforcement Defense Division, Austin, TX, for Defendants Bryan Collier, Dennis Crowley.
Edward Larry Marshall, Jessica Lauren Weltge, Leah Jean O'Leary, Office of the Texas Attorney General, Law Enforcement Defense Division, Austin, TX, Matthew Dennis Ottoway, Office of the Attorney General of Texas, Criminal Appeals Division, Austin, TX, for Defendant Bobby Lumpkin-Director TDCJ-CID.
Charles Eskridge, United States District Judge Plaintiff Ramiro Felix Gonzales is an inmate convicted of a capital offense in Texas. He faces an execution date of July 13, 2022. He asserts religious liberty claims under the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 USC § 2000cc et seq , referred to hereafter as RLUIPA.
The motion by Gonzales for a preliminary injunction under RLUIPA is granted. Dkt 59. For reasons specified below, the State of Texas may proceed with Gonzales’ scheduled execution only if he's allowed his requested religious accommodations, being that his spiritual advisor is permitted to hold his hand, place another hand on his chest, and audibly pray during and at the time of execution.
Ramiro Felix Gonzales seeks narrow relief with respect to certain religious accommodations that he believes to be important during his impending execution. No question is presented as to his guilt or innocence or whether he's deserving of capital punishment. But his request for a preliminary injunction requires a balance of equities and interests. An appreciation of his crime and litigation history is thus in order. Likewise important to the merits is a detailed understanding of the execution chamber.
In contrast to the accommodations that Gonzales seeks here, his victim died alone in fear and agony, far from the comfort and solace of any minister or family member. The Fifth Circuit has recounted his crime this way:
On January 15, 2001, Gonzales went to the home of his drug supplier, hoping to steal cocaine. Only his supplier's girlfriend, Bridget Townsend, was at the home, so he tied her up and stole what cash he could find, but did not find any drugs. He then carried the bound Townsend to his pickup truck, drove her out to the large ranch on which he lived, retrieved a hunting rifle, and marched Townsend out into the deserted brush. When he started loading the rifle, Townsend told Gonzales that she would give him money, drugs, or sex if he would spare her life. In response, Gonzales unloaded the rifle and took Townsend back to his truck, where he had sex with her. After she dressed, he reloaded the rifle, walked her back into the brush, and shot her. He left her body where it fell. Gonzales eventually confessed to his crimes.
Gonzales v. Stephens , 606 F. Appx. 767, 768 (5th Cir. 2015, per curiam ).
Gonzales was tried by a Texas jury in 2006. The State there presented evidence of his significant criminal history apart from the murder. This included previous convictions for aggravated kidnapping, aggravated sexual assault, felony theft, forgery, and burglary of a habitation. See Gonzales v. Stephens , 2014 WL 496876, *3 (W.D. Tex.) (recounting evidence presented).
The jury convicted Gonzales of murder and sentenced him to death.
Gonzales has since unsuccessfully challenged his conviction and sentence in state court. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed on direct appeal. Gonzales v. Texas , 2009 WL 1684699, *1 (Tex. Crim. App.). His state application for relief on habeas corpus was denied. Ex parte Gonzales , 2012 WL 2424176, *1 (Tex. Crim. App., per curiam ). And a subsequent application for relief on habeas corpus was denied as an abuse of the writ. Ex parte Gonzales , 2012 WL 340407, *1 (Tex. Crim. App., per curiam ).
Gonzales has also unsuccessfully sought review in federal court. The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas denied his federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus in 2014. Gonzales v. Stephens , 2014 WL 496876 at *46. The Fifth Circuit affirmed in 2015. Gonzales v Stephens , 606 F. Appx. 767, 775 (5th Cir. 2015, per curiam ) ; see also Gonzales v. Davis , 788 F. Appx. 250, 254 (5th Cir. 2019, per curiam ) (affirming denial of relief under Rule 60(b)(6)).
This litigation is unrelated to the merits of Gonzales’ conviction or the justness of the death penalty in relation to his crime and criminal history. It traces back to his application to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a religious accommodation in January 2021. He requested that his spiritual advisor, Reverend Bri-anne Swan, be present at his execution, hold his hand, place her other hand over his heart, and pray out loud. See Dkts 72-1 & 72-2. TDCJ denied that request. Dkt 1-1 at 28–29.
Gonzales brought this action on March 12, 2021. Named as defendants are Bryan Collier as Executive Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Bobby Lumpkin as Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice—Correctional Institutions Division, and Dennis Crowley as Warden of the Huntsville Unit. Dkt 1. Warden Crowley has recently stepped down from that post, but he's still expected to be present at Gonzales’ execution if it proceeds as scheduled. These men are all named in their official capacities within divisions of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. As such, they and their agency will be referred to together as TDCJ.
Gonzales’ execution date has been rescheduled twice since he filed this action. Dkts 9 & 21. And in that time, Texas has modified its execution protocol. TDCJ denied Gonzales’ original request because its policy at the time didn't allow spiritual advisors into the execution chamber. But on April 21, 2021, TDCJ adopted a new protocol that would allow an inmate's chosen spiritual advisor into the chamber. TDCJ officials also determined that the new protocol precluded physical touch and audible prayer by the spiritual advisor, although that wasn't specifically addressed by that change. Dkt 72-3; see also Dkt 81 at 13. With that change, the State moved for partial dismissal on a range of issues. Dkt 10; see also Dkt 15 at 5–6. That motion was granted on September 22, 2021, and all claims were dismissed except those involving what a spiritual advisor may do in the execution chamber. Dkt 20.
The remaining issues in this case came into sharper focus with the decision by the Supreme Court in Ramirez v. Collier on March 24, 2022. It was there determined under a preliminary-injunction standard that a condemned inmate would likely succeed on the merits of his RLUIPA claim by which he sought both touch and prayer during execution. ––– U.S. ––––, 142 S. Ct. 1264, 1280–81, 212 L.Ed.2d 262 (2022). The Supreme Court also observed that States should "adopt clear rules" regarding religious expression in the execution chamber in order to prevent "last-minute resort to the federal courts." Id. at 1283.
Texas hasn't yet responded with a formal policy change. See Dkt 81 at 13. It instead appears that Director Lumpkin and the Warden of the Huntsville Unit will make a case-by-case assessment of what religious requests TDCJ will honor. Id at 14. Gonzales also notes that accommodations granted in advance of the execution can potentially be modified at the discretion of Director Lumpkin and the Warden in the moments immediately prior to the commencement of the execution. Id at 15–16 & 17–18; see also Dkt 51 at 22–23.
TDCJ acquiesced to two of Gonzales’ requests after the Ramirez decision. Gonzales’ spiritual advisor may now lay her hand on Gonzales’ chest and pray aloud throughout the execution. But she still can't hold his hand. Dkt 81 at 17; see also Dkt 42 at 5–7. The reasons for this and the interests invoked by TDCJ are detailed below in the section on compelling governmental interests , but they essentially pertain to the security and integrity of the intravenous lines and to the need for certain lines of sight by a number of persons present within or immediately adjacent to the execution chamber.
Pending is a motion by Gonzales for partial summary judgment on the limited question of whether TDCJ's decision to prohibit his spiritual advisor from holding his hand substantially burdens his sincere religious exercise. Dkt 40. TDCJ filed a cross-motion for summary judgment to establish that Gonzales hasn't made the necessary showing under RLUIPA, arguing primarily that its present accommodations mean that no substantial burden on Gonzales’ religious exercise exists. Dkt 42.
Trial to the bench was scheduled to commence on July 5, 2022. Dkt 36. That trial was continued by separate order issued yesterday, once it became clear that discovery and other logistical issues have overtaken the ability of the parties to be ready for and to fairly participate in trial on the merits as scheduled. Dkt 90.
In connection with a recent hearing on trial issues, Gonzales was instructed to bring any motion for preliminary injunction promptly, if desired. Dkt 57. He did so on June 24, 2022, moving for relief that would allow his execution to proceed so long as his requested religious accommodations are, in fact, observed during his execution. Dkt 59.
At hearing on June 22, 2022, the parties agreed that an inspection visit by the undersigned to the execution chamber at the Huntsville Unit would be appropriate to this Court's consideration of the merits on...
To continue reading
Request your trial