Murphy v. Collier, 19-70007

• Citation: 919 F.3d 913
• Decision Date: 27 March 2019
• Docket Number: No. 19-70007,19-70007
• Parties: Patrick Henry MURPHY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bryan COLLIER, Executive Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice; Lorie Davis, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division ; Billy Lewis, Warden, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)

919 F.3d 913

Patrick Henry MURPHY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Bryan COLLIER, Executive Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice; Lorie Davis, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division ; Billy Lewis, Warden, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-70007

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

FILED March 27, 2019

David R. Dow, University of Houston, Law Center, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Matthew Dennis Ottoway, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General Criminal Appeals Division, Gwendolyn Suzanne Vindell, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General Financial Litigation & Charitable Trusts Division, Austin, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before SMITH, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Patrick Murphy is scheduled for execution on March 28, 2019, for the murder of police officer Aubrey Hawkins on December 24, 2000. His execution date was set on November 29, 2018. Murphy complains that the state of Texas permits only religious clerics who are employees of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) to be physically present in the execution chamber at the time of an execution. He further complains that the TDCJ at present only employs chaplains who are Christian or Muslim, while acknowledging that the TDCJ contracts to bring chaplains and spiritual advisors of other religions into the prison facilities. Under the state’s procedures, chaplains and spiritual advisors who are not employees of the TDCJ may meet with an inmate on the execution date prior to entering the execution chamber and they may watch the execution from a viewing room, but they may not physically enter the execution chamber itself.

On March 20—eight days before his scheduled execution—Murphy petitioned the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for a writ of prohibition seeking to prohibit his execution until the state allowed his preferred spiritual advisor—a Buddhist priest—to be physically present in the execution chamber at the time of execution. That petition was denied on March 25. On March 26—two days before his scheduled execution—Murphy filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and a motion for stay of execution with the federal district court, again seeking to prohibit his execution until the state allows his preferred spiritual advisor to be physically present in the execution chamber. His Section 1983 complaint alleged violations of the Establishment Clause, the Free Exercise Clause, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). In a well-reasoned eleven-page Memorandum Opinion and Order, the district court denied the motion for a stay of execution as untimely. Murphy appeals the district court’s determination that he is not entitled to a stay of execution, filing his appeal

919 F.3d 915

with this court on March 27—one day before his scheduled execution.

"[W]e review a district court’s decision to deny a stay of execution for abuse of discretion." Diaz v. Stephens , 731 F.3d 370, 374 (5th Cir. 2013). "[A] stay of execution is an equitable remedy. It is not available as a matter of right, and equity must be sensitive to the State’s strong interest in enforcing its criminal judgments without undue interference from the federal courts." Hill v. McDonough , 547 U.S. 573, 584, 126 S.Ct. 2096, 165 L.Ed.2d 44 (2006). To be...