James v. Raybon
| Decision Date | 11 July 2022 |
| Docket Number | C. A. 1:22-cv-252-TFM-N |
| Parties | JOE NATHAN JAMES, JR., AIS 000Z610 Plaintiff, v. TERRY RAYBON, Warden, et. al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama |
Plaintiff Joe Nathan James, Jr., an Alabama death row inmate, is scheduled for execution on July 28, 2022. Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,[1] James filed the instant action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Defendants Warden Terry Raybon and Alabama Department of Corrections Commissioner John Hamm, in their official capacities, alleging violations of his federal constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Doc. 1. The Court has construed James' Complaint as containing a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (see Doc. 3), which is now before the Court, as is the Defendants' Response (Doc 8),[2] and review of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).[3]
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND[4]
In 1996, a Jefferson County, Alabama jury found James guilty of murdering his former girlfriend and recommended the death penalty. See James v. State, 723 So.2d 776, 777-78 (Ala.Crim.App.1998). His conviction was reversed by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals based on the erroneous admission of hearsay evidence during the first trial. See id. at 784, 786. On retrial, a Jefferson County, Alabama jury, again, found James guilty of murder and unanimously recommended a death sentence, and the court sentenced James to death. See James v. State, 788 So.2d 185, 197 (Ala.Crim.App.2000) (). James' conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal, and his state court post-conviction petitions were denied. See James v State, 788 So.2d 185 (Ala.Crim.App.2000), cert denied, 532 U.S. 1040, 121 S.Ct. 2005, 149 L.Ed.2d 1007 (2001); James v. State, 61 So.3d 332 (Ala.Crim.App.2006); James v. State, 61 So.3d 357 (Ala.Crim.App.2010), cert. denied without opinion Oct. 15, 2010.
Thereafter James filed a federal habeas petition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, where his claims were denied as procedurally defaulted and/or meritless. See James v. Culliver, Civ. Act. No. CV-10-S-2929-S, 2014 WL 4926178, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139696 (N.D. Ala. Sept. 30, 2014).
Appeal of that judgment was affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit,[5] and his petition for writ of certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court on March 1, 2021. James v. Raybon, 141 S.Ct. 1463, 209 L.Ed.2d 180 (2021). On April 11, 2022, James filed a petition for federal habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in this court, which was dismissed without prejudice, prior to service, for lack of jurisdiction as an unauthorized successive petition. James v. Raybon, Civ. Act. No. 1:22-CV-00152-JB-N, 2022 WL 2308917, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113260 (S.D. Ala. June 27, 2022)
On March 17, 2022, the State of Alabama filed a motion to set the execution of Joe Nathan James. Doc. 8-1 at 2. On June 7, 2022, the Supreme Court of Alabama granted the State's motion and set the execution of Joe Nathan James for July 28, 2022, ordering that it be carried out by the Warden of the William C. Holman Correctional Facility by the means provided by law. (Hereinafter “the execution order” or “the Order”). Id.; Doc. 1 at 4. In response to the setting of his execution, Plaintiff has filed numerous actions, including the suit currently before the Court.[6]
II. Complaint James sues Defendants Raybon and Hamm, as Warden of Holman Correctional Facility and Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections, respectively, for violating his Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection, by accepting the execution order issued on June 7, 2022, by the Alabama Supreme Court and beginning the execution process based upon that order. Specifically, James alleges that the “Order . . . does not, under existing law, constitute a[n] execution warrant and therefore does not grant the defendants the authority to perform an execution.” Doc. 1 at 4.
According to James, on June 8, 2022, the Order setting his execution date was hand delivered to Warden Raybon and Hamm by a marshal of the appellate courts of Alabama. He contends this violates the requirement of Ala. Code § 15-18-80 “that the Clerk of Court in which the sentenced was pronounced shall issue a warrant under the seal of the trial court, and that said warrant shall be delivered along with the condemned to the Warden of Holman prison.” Doc. 1 at 4, 8. James thus challenges in his Complaint that he is being subjected to execution without a valid warrant.
James requests that the Court issue a temporary restraining order to stop the execution process and issue a preliminary injunction ordering defendants to stop the practice of using orders issued by the Alabama Supreme Court as authority to execute and discontinue the practice of delivery of the condemned and the warrant through illegal means, in violation of 15-18-80.[7] Doc. 1 at 7.
The Court construed James' Complaint as containing a request for a Preliminary Injunction to stay execution, to which Defendants have responded.
III. Jurisdiction
Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750, 124 S.Ct. 1303, 158 L.Ed.2d 32 (2004) (per curiam) (citing Preiser, 411 U.S., at 500, 93 S.Ct. 1827). An inmate's challenge to the circumstances of his confinement, however, may be brought under § 1983. 540 U.S., at 750, 124 S.Ct. 1303.
Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573, 579, 126 S.Ct. 2096, 2101, 165 L.Ed.2d 44 (2006). The crux of James' suit goes to the administrative procedures and protocol of carrying out his sentence, not to the enforcement of a conviction or sentence. That is, the nature of James' challenge does not necessarily imply the invalidity of his confinement or sentence. But cf., Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997) (); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) (). Accordingly, § 1983 appears to be the proper vehicle for his challenge, where injunctive relief is sought to “discontinue the practice of delivery of the condemned and the warrant through illegal means, in violation of 15-18-80.”
IV. Preliminary Injunction
“Filing a § 1983 action does not entitle the complainant to an automatic stay of execution.” Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573, 574, 126 S.Ct. 2096, 2099, 165 L.Ed.2d 44 (2006) (). Rather, “[i]ts grant is the exception rather than the rule[.]” Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir. 2000).[8] A federal court may issue the equitable remedy only if the inmate demonstrates each of the following elements: (1) he has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) he will suffer irreparable injury unless the stay issues; (3) the threatened injury outweighs the harm the stay would cause the other litigant; and (4) if issued, the stay would not be adverse to the public interest. Price v. Comm'r, Ala. Dep't of Corr., 920 F.3d 1317, 1323 (11th Cir. 2019); see also Sells v. Livingston, 561 Fed.Appx. 342, 344 (5th Cir. 2014) ().
James is not entitled to a stay of execution because he has failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his claim. See Northeastern Fl. Chapter of the Ass'n of Gen. Contractors of Am. v. City of Jacksonville, 896 F.2d 1283, 1285 (11th Cir. 1990) (“The preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to be granted until the movant ‘clearly carries the burden of persuasion' as to the four prerequisites.”). The issuance and delivery of the Alabama Supreme Court's order setting James' execution for July 28, 2022, complies with the current state procedures and is a valid, legal execution warrant. James' reliance on Ala. Code § 15-18-80, as the proper procedure for the issuance of Alabama execution warrants, is simply incorrect.
Title 15 of the Alabama Code was originally enacted to govern the rules of Alabama criminal procedure. As to issuance of execution orders in capital cases, it promulgated:
When sentenced to death:
To continue reading
Request your trial