Gutierrez v. Saenz
| Decision Date | 23 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL NO. 1:19-CV-185 |
| Citation | 565 F.Supp.3d 892 |
| Parties | Ruben GUTIERREZ, Plaintiff, v. Luis V. SAENZ, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
Peter James Walker, Anne Fisher, Pro Hac Vice, Jess Tsang, Pro Hac Vice, Matthew C. Lawry, Pro Hac Vice, Federal Community Defender, Philadelphia, PA, Richard W. Rogers, III, Attorney at Law, Corpus Christi, TX, for Plaintiff.
Edward Adrian Sandoval, Cameron County District Attorney's Office, Brownsville, TX, for Defendant Luis V. Saenz.
Rene E. De Coss, Attorney at Law, Brownsville, TX, Ricardo J. Navarro, Denton Navarro Rocha Bernal & Zech, P.C., Harlingen, TX, for Defendant Felix Sauceda.
Leah Jean O'Leary, Law Enforcement Defense Division, Amy L. Hunsucker Prasad, Edward Larry Marshall, Jefferson David Clendenin, Office of the Attorney General, Austin, TX, for Defendants Bryan Collier, Bobby Lumpkin, Billy Lewis.
Amy L. Hunsucker Prasad, Attorney General Law, Leah Jean O'Leary, Law Enforcement Defense Division, Austin, TX, for Defendant Dennis Crowley.
Hilda Tagle, Senior United States District Judge The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff Ruben Gutierrez's ("Gutierrez") Brief regarding DNA Claims, Dkt. No. 118, and of Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration. Dkt. No. 119. The Court is also in receipt of responses from Gutierrez and Defendants to their respective brief/motions. Dkt. Nos. 122, 123. Finally, the Court is in receipt of briefs from Gutierrez and Defendants regarding the effect of the Supreme Court's vacatur in this case. Dkt. Nos. 139, 140.
This action arises under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343. Additionally, the Supreme Court determined in Skinner v. Switzer that a § 1983 action is the proper vehicle for a suit challenging a state DNA testing statute. Skinner v. Switzer , 562 U.S. 521, 534, 131 S.Ct. 1289, 179 L.Ed.2d 233 (2011).
Gutierrez is incarcerated at the Allan B. Polunsky Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice ("TDCJ") in Livingston, Texas. Dkt. No. 45 at 4-5. Gutierrez was sentenced to death for the murder of Escolastica Harrison in 1999. Id.
In this suit, Gutierrez has named as Defendants Luis V. Saenz ("Saenz"), District Attorney for the 107th Judicial District; Felix Sauceda, Jr. ("Sauceda"), Chief of the Brownsville Police Department; Bryan Collier ("Collier"), Executive Director of the TDCJ; Lorie Davis ("Davis"), director of the Correctional Institutions Division of the TDCJ and Billy Lewis ("Lewis"), the senior warden of the Huntsville Unit where inmates are executed. Dkt. No. 45.
Gutierrez's complaint concerns 1) execution chamber free exercise of religion claims and 2) a challenge to Texas's DNA testing statute. Dkt. No. 45. This opinion only considers Gutierrez's DNA testing challenge.
Gutierrez's action arises under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and challenges the constitutionality of the DNA testing procedures in Chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Motion for Forensic DNA Testing ("Chapter 64"). Dkt. No. 45 at 3; Tex. Crim. Proc. Code art. 64. Gutierrez alleges he has repeatedly sought DNA testing which has been unfairly denied. Dkt. No. 45. Gutierrez challenges the constitutionality of Chapter 64 on its face and as it has been applied to him. Id. He claims the statute violates procedural due process because it denies him the ability to test evidence that would demonstrate he is innocent of the death penalty, and that it is unequally and unfairly applied to someone who is convicted of capital murder under the law of parties. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 7.01. He also claims Chapter 64's preponderance of the evidence/different outcome standard is overbroad. Dkt. No. 45 at 25-26. He seeks a declaratory judgment that Chapter 64 is unconstitutional. Id. at 37. Gutierrez challenges the State's refusal to release biological evidence for testing and requests the Court declare that the withholding of evidence for testing violates his procedural due process rights. Id. at 38.
On June 2, 2020, this Court granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss Gutierrez's complaint for failure to state a claim and lack of jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 48. On June 9, 2020, finding substantial factual and legal issues that were unresolved in this case, the Court stayed Gutierrez's execution that was scheduled for June 16, 2020. Dkt. No. 57. The Fifth Circuit vacated the stay of execution on June 12, 2020. Gutierrez v. Saenz , 818 F. App'x 309 (5th Cir. 2020). Gutierrez sought certiorari review of his execution chamber religion claims. Gutierrez v. Saenz , 19-8695, Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. The Supreme Court stayed Gutierrez execution on June 16, 2020. Gutierrez v. Saenz , ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S.Ct. 127, 207 L. Ed. 2d 1075 (2020) ; see Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co. , 459 U.S. 56, 58, 103 S.Ct. 400, 74 L.Ed.2d 225 (1982).
On June 17, 2020, this Court set a deadline for the Parties to submit a brief regarding "what, if any, DNA claims remain in this case and the merits of those claims." Dkt. No. 70. Gutierrez filed his DNA claims brief on October 22, 2020. Dkt. No. 118. Defendants did not file a brief and instead filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's June 2, 2020 order granting in part and denying in part Defendants motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 119; See Dkt. No. 48. Response briefs were filed by both Parties on October 29, 2020. Dkt. Nos. 122, 123.
The Supreme Court issued a Grant, Vacate, and Remand ("GVR") order in this case on January 25, 2021. Gutierrez v. Saenz , ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S.Ct. 1260, 1261, 209 L.Ed.2d 4 (2021). The Supreme Court remanded to the Fifth Circuit with instructions to remand to the District Court for "further and prompt consideration of the merits of petitioner's underlying claims regarding the presence of a spiritual advisor in the execution chamber." Following the Supreme Court's instructions, the Fifth Circuit remanded to this Court on February 26, 2021. Dkt. No. 133.
Gutierrez argues the Fifth Circuit's vacatur of the stay of execution focused solely on whether he had made a sufficient showing on the merits of the stay and did not rule on the ultimate merits of any of his DNA claims. Dkt. No. 118. Gutierrez argues that the question to be decided by the undersigned is whether Gutierrez has stated a claim on which relief can be granted. Id. He argues that the Fifth Circuit misconstrued the facts in Osborne and this case, and therefore the Fifth Circuit's opinion was legally erroneous when applying Osborne to his DNA claims and should not be relied on by this Court. Id. at 10-13. Gutierrez argues Chapter 64's standard requiring him to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he would not have been convicted of capital murder has created an insurmountable barrier to obtaining DNA testing. Gutierrez further argues that Texas courts have construed that standard in a way that is "virtually impossible to meet." Id. at 9. Gutierrez also argues the standard which allows for assessment of evidence before it exists is an escape hatch that violates due process. Id. at 14. Additionally, he argues the procedures for DNA testing are fundamentally inadequate to vindicate the substantive rights the State of Texas provides. Id. Gutierrez argues the legal standard erects an impossibly high barrier to a defendant seeking to establish his innocence of a crime for which he was convicted. Id. at 14. Finally, Gutierrez argues the Chapter 64 standard precludes a defendant seeking to establish his innocence of the death penalty from receiving DNA testing, violating his rights under the Due Process Clause. Id. at 28-29.
Defendants’ motion for reconsideration moves the Court to reconsider its prior order and dismiss Gutierrez's DNA claims because the Fifth Circuit concluded all of Gutierrez's claims are entirely without merit. Dkt. No. 119 at 8. Defendants then reassert the arguments they raised in the motion to dismiss regarding a time bar and a failure to state a claim. Id. Defendants argue the Fifth Circuit's ruling should be followed to dispose of all DNA claims in this action. Dkt. No. 140. Gutierrez argues that the Fifth Circuit's ruling no longer has precedential effect and further that no court has reached the merits of his DNA claims in this case. Dkt. No. 139.
Gutierrez was indicted along with Rene Garcia ("Garcia") and Pedro Gracia ("Gracia") for the robbery and murder of Escolastica Harrison ("Harrison"). Id. at 6. Gracia was released on bond and absconded. Id. Garcia pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Id. Gutierrez pleaded not guilty, was tried by a jury, convicted, and sentenced to death in 1999. Id. at 7.
While proceeding in the 107th District Court before Judge Benjamin Euresti, Jr. ("Judge Euresti"), Gutierrez made several motions related to DNA testing. Following a May 14, 2008 denial of a state habeas petition, Gutierrez made a pro se motion for appointment of counsel on May 8, 2009 for the purpose of requesting DNA testing under Chapter 64. The motion was denied by Judge Euresti on May 29, 2009 and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ("CCA") dismissed Gutierrez's appeal on March 24, 2010, concluding the denial of counsel was not appealable. Gutierrez v. State , 307 S.W.3d 318, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).
With assistance of his federal habeas counsel, Gutierrez moved for DNA testing under Chapter 64 on April 5, 2010. State of Texas, v. Ruben Gutierrez , 2010 WL 8231200 (Tex. Dist.). On August 27, 2010, Judge Euresti denied Gutierrez DNA testing under Chapter 64. Dkt. No. 45 at 9; Tex. Crim. Proc. Code art. 64. On May 4, 2011, the CCA affirmed the denial of the DNA testing motion. Ex parte Gutierrez , 337 S.W.3d 883, 886 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). The CCA concluded Gutierrez was not entitled to appointment of counsel because "reasonable grounds" did not exist for filing a motion for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Simpson v. Salsbery
-
Hancock v. Behenna
...of the death penalty,” Texas' application of these laws denied a defendant sentenced to death his federal procedural due process rights. Id. at 910-11 (“A bar on . . . DNA to demonstrate innocence of the death penalty renders [the statute granting the right to seek relief upon a showing of ......