Hancock v. Behenna
| Docket Number | CIV-23-873-G |
| Decision Date | 27 October 2023 |
| Parties | PHILLIP DEAN HANCOCK, Plaintiff, v. VICKI BEHENNA, Oklahoma County District Attorney, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma |
Plaintiff Phillip Dean Hancock, an Oklahoma death row inmate, is scheduled to be executed on November 30, 2023. On October 4 2023, Plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint alleging that the withholding of certain physical evidence deprives him of various constitutional rights. See Compl. (Doc. No 1). Per the Court's order for expedited briefing, on October 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. See Pl.'s Mot. (Doc. No. 11). Defendants have filed their responses (Doc. Nos. 15, 16), and Plaintiff has filed a reply (Doc. No. 21). Having reviewed the parties' submissions, the Court finds a hearing is not required and makes the following determinations.
Under the Oklahoma Post-Conviction Procedure Act, a person convicted of a crime may seek postconviction relief upon the conviction or sentence. See Okla. Stat. tit. 22, §§ 1080-1089. Under a separate statute, the Oklahoma Postconviction DNA Act, certain convicted persons may seek DNA testing and present the results of that testing as a basis for various types of relief, including vacation of conviction or discharge from custody. See id. §§ 1373-1373.7. In the instant action, Plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of the Postconviction DNA Act both on its face and as authoritatively construed by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (“OCCA”). Plaintiff names as defendants Vicki Behenna, Oklahoma County District Attorney; Wade Gourley, Chief, Oklahoma City Police Department; and Eric Pfeifer, Chief, Oklahoma Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. Plaintiff brings suit against all defendants in their official capacities, alleging each defendant either opposes his request for DNA testing or has custody and/or control of the physical evidence sought to be tested and is denying him access to such evidence. See Compl. ¶¶ 15-17.
Plaintiff asserts three claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The first is a denial of procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, wherein Plaintiff challenges the Oklahoma courts' construction of the Postconviction DNA Act's requirement that a court must make a finding regarding “favorable results” to order the requested DNA testing. Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1373.4(A)(1); see Compl. ¶¶ 42, 49-61. Plaintiff additionally brings a facial challenge contending the Postconviction DNA Act violates due process because it predicates a court's order of DNA testing upon a finding that the request for such testing “is made to demonstrate the innocence of the convicted person.” Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1373.4(A)(2); see Compl. ¶¶ 62-64; see also Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1373.2(A). Plaintiff's second and third claims allege that Oklahoma's statutory procedure for obtaining access to DNA testing violates his right to access the courts under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. See Compl. ¶¶ 67-73.
Plaintiff seeks (1) a declaratory judgment that the Postconviction DNA Act as applied by the OCCA is unconstitutional, and (2) a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendants to allow access to the evidence for testing. See id. ¶¶ 11, 74; Pl.'s Mot. at 8-16. The Court now addresses Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction.
Plaintiff's claims are asserted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which is the proper vehicle for raising a postconviction claim for DNA testing. See Compl. ¶¶ 10, 12; Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 525, 534 (2011). To establish Defendants' liability under § 1983, Plaintiff must show “the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States” and “that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). The Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff's action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.
In 2004, Plaintiff was tried before a jury in the District Court of Oklahoma County and found guilty of two counts of Murder in the First Degree for the deaths of James Lynch and Robert Jett. See State v. Hancock, No. CF-2002-3562 (Okla. Cnty. Dist. Ct.). The jury convicted Plaintiff to death on both counts, having found four aggravating circumstances for each murder: (1) he was previously convicted of a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person; (2) he knowingly created a great risk of death to more than one person; (3) a probability existed that he would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society; and (4) the murders were especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel. Compl. ¶ 37; Pl.'s Mot. Ex. 4, Trial Ct. Findings of Fact & Concls. of Law (Doc. No. 11-4) at 2-3.
Plaintiff appealed his convictions and sentences to the OCCA. The OCCA affirmed in relevant part, and the United States Supreme Court denied a writ of certiorari. See Hancock v. State, 155 P.3d 796 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007); Hancock v. Oklahoma, 552 U.S. 1029 (2007). Petitioner also sought postconviction relief, which the state courts denied. See Hancock v. State, No. PCD-2004-1265 (Okla. Crim. App.).
Plaintiff then challenged the constitutionality of his conviction and sentence in federal court through a petition for writ of habeas corpus. See Hancock v. Workman, No. CIV-08-327-F (W.D. Okla.). This Court's denial of habeas relief was affirmed by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, see Hancock v. Trammell, 798 F.3d 1002 (10th Cir. 2015), and a writ of certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court. See Hancock v. Duckworth, 580 U.S. 831 (2016).
In 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion in the state trial court, requesting forensic DNA testing, pursuant to title 22, section 1373.2 of the Oklahoma Statutes, that he asserted would show he is innocent of the crimes for which he was convicted. See Compl. ¶ 40; Defs.' Resp. Ex. 7, Pl.'s Mot. DNA Testing (Doc. No. 16-7) at 22, 33. The trial court initially denied the motion without a hearing, but on remand from the OCCA held a hearing and then again denied the motion. Compl. ¶¶ 41-42. Plaintiff appealed, and the OCCA affirmed on May 11, 2023. Id. ¶ 43; see Pl.'s Mot. Ex. 5, OCCA Summ. Op. (Doc. No. 11-5).
Plaintiff now moves this Court for an injunction requiring Defendants to produce and release for DNA testing the following items: Mr. Lynch's fingernail scrapings; Mr. Lynch's clothing; Mr. Jett's clothing; Mr. Jett's wallet; and a letter found on a metal bar at the scene. Plaintiff alleges that favorable DNA test results would show the presence of Plaintiff's blood and DNA on each of these items. He argues such results would corroborate his contention that Mr. Lynch held him down in a chokehold while Mr. Jett violently attacked him with the metal bar, causing Plaintiff to shoot them both at pointblank range in an act of self-defense. See Compl. ¶¶ 4-6; Pl.'s Mot. at 12. Plaintiff further alleges that such results would undermine the State's theory of the case-i.e., that Mr. Jett retreated and it was physically impossible for Mr. Lynch to join the attack. See Compl. ¶ 7.
Plaintiff seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction authorizing his access to the evidence in Defendants' control in order for Plaintiff to conduct DNA testing upon that evidence. “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). And “the requirements for obtaining a permanent injunction are remarkably similar to those for obtaining a preliminary injunction.” Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Rsrv. v. Lawrence, 22 F.4th 892, 908 (10th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[T]he same four elements apply to both types of injunctive relief, and the only measurable difference between the two is that a permanent injunction requires showing actual success on the merits, whereas a preliminary injunction requires showing a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.” Id. (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). But “[a]n injunction can issue only if each factor is established.” Denver Homeless Out Loud v. Denver, 32 F.4th 1259, 1277 (10th Cir. 2022).
The decision to grant or deny injunctive relief is addressed to the equitable discretion of the Court. See Ute Indian Tribe, 22 F.4th at 899; eBay Inc. v. MercExhange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006). “Because a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, the movant's right to relief must be clear and unequivocal.” Dominion Video Satellite, Inc. v. EchoStar Satellite Corp., 269 F.3d 1149, 1154 (10th Cir. 2001); accord Denver Homeless Out Loud, 32 F.4th at 1278.
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a State from “depriv[ing] any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const amend. XIV, § 1. Plaintiff here challenges the constitutionality of Oklahoma's Postconviction DNA Act, a statute setting forth procedures for postconviction relief relating to DNA testing. While there is no federal constitutional right for a convicted defendant to obtain evidence for postconviction DNA...
To continue reading
Request your trial