Roane v. Barr (In re Fed. Bureau of Prisons' Execution Protocol Cases)
| Decision Date | 15 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 19-mc-145 (TSC),19-cv-3214,19-cv-2559,20-cv-557 |
| Citation | 474 F.Supp.3d 171 |
| Parties | In the MATTER OF the FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS’ EXECUTION PROTOCOL CASES, Lead Case: Roane, et al. v. Barr This Document Relates to: Lee v. Barr, et al., Purkey v. Barr, et al., Nelson v. Barr, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Joshua Christopher Toll, King & Spalding, LLP, Paul F. Enzinna, Ellerman Enzinna PLLC, Washington, DC, for James H. Roane, Jr.
Brandon David Almond, Troutman Sanders LLP, Charles Anthony Zdebski, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC Telecommunications Law, Joshua Christopher Toll, King & Spalding, LLP, Washington, DC, Gerald Wesley King, Jr., Pro Hac Vice, Federal Defender Program, Inc., Atlanta, GA, for Richard Tipton.
Charles Frederick Walker, Donald P. Salzman, Steven M. Albertson, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Charles Anthony Zdebski, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC Telecommunications Law, Joshua Christopher Toll, King & Spalding, LLP, Washington, DC, Alex Drylewski, Pro Hac Vice, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, New York, NY, for Cory Johnson.
Celeste Bacchi, Craig Anthony Harbaugh, Jonathan Charles Aminoff, Office of the Public Defender, Los Angeles, CA, for Julius Robinson.
Alexander Louis Kursman, Billy H. Nolas, Office of the Federal Community Defender, Philadelphia, PA, for Alfred Bourgeois.
David S. Victorson, Danielle Desaulniers Stempel, Pro Hac Vice, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Washington, DC, Elizabeth Hagerty, U.S. Attorney's Office, Denver, CO, John D. Beck, Pro Hac Vice, Pieter Van Tol, Pro Hac Vice, Hogan Lovells US LLP, New York, NY, for Daniel Lewis Lee.
Andres C. Salinas, Arin Hillary Smith, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, Washington, DC, Alan E. Schoenfeld, Pro Hac Vice, Ryan M. Chabot, Pro Hac Vice, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr, LLP, New York, NY, for Wesley Ira Purkey.
Scott Wilson Braden, Federal Public Defender, Little Rock, AR, Andrew Moshos, Pro Hac Vice, Jeffrey Lyons, Pro Hac Vice, Jennifer Ying, Pro Hac Vice, Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Stephen J. Kraftschik, Pro Hac Vice, Polsinelli PC, Wilmington, DE, for Norris G. Holder, Jr.
Brian J. O'Sullivan, Michael Robles, Pro Hac Vice, Harry P. Cohen, Pro Hac Vice, James K. Stronski, Pro Hac Vice, Crowell & Moring LLP, New York, NY, Dale Andrew Baich, Jennifer M. Moreno, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Phoenix, AZ, Kathryn Louise Clune, Crowell & Moring, LLP, Washington, DC, for Keith Nelson.
Ginger Dawn Anders, Brendan B. Gants, Jonathan S. Meltzer, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Washington, DC, for Brandon Bernard.
Michael F. Williams, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, DC, Susan M. Otto, Federal Public Defender Organization, Oklahoma City, OK, for Christopher Andre Vialva.
Alan Burch, Denise M. Clark, Peter S. Smith, U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, Bradley P. Humphreys, Cristen Cori Handley, Jean Lin, Jonathan D. Kossak, Paul R. Perkins, Ethan Price Davis, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Karen Tandy.
Alan Burch, Denise M. Clark, U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, Bradley P. Humphreys, Cristen Cori Handley, Jean Lin, Jonathan D. Kossak, Paul R. Perkins, Ethan Price Davis, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Harley G. Lappin, John Does, Thomas Webster, Michael B. Mukasey, Alan R. Doerhoff, Michele Leonhart, Charles E. Samuels, Jr., John F. Caraway, United States Department of Justice, Paul Laird, Kerry J. Forestal, Charles L. Lockett.
Alan Burch, Denise M. Clark, Peter S. Smith, United States Attorney's Office, Bradley P. Humphreys, Cristen Cori Handley, Jean Lin, Jonathan D. Kossak, Paul R. Perkins, Robert J. Erickson, Ethan Price Davis, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Newton E. Kendig, II, Mark Bezy.
Alan Burch, Denise M. Clark, U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, Bradley P. Humphreys, Cristen Cori Handley, Jean Lin, Jonathan D. Kossak, Paul R. Perkins, Ethan Price Davis, U.S. Department of Justice, Paul F. Enzinna, Ellerman Enzinna PLLC, Washington, DC, for Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Alan Burch, U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, Bradley P. Humphreys, Cristen Cori Handley, Jean Lin, Jonathan D. Kossak, Paul R. Perkins, Ethan Price Davis, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Amy Gershenfeld Donnella, Billy H. Nolas, Shawn Nolan, Federal Community Defender Office for the EDPA, Joseph William Luby, Federal Public Defender, Philadelphia, PA, for Chadr Ick Evan Fulks.
Alan Burch, U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, Bradley P. Humphreys, Cristen Cori Handley, Paul R. Perkins, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for William P. Barr, Jeffrey E. Krueger, Joseph McClain, Radm Chris A. Bina, T. J. Watson.
Bradley P. Humphreys, Cristen Cori Handley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Uttam Dhillon, Nicole English.
TANYA S. CHUTKAN, United States District Judge After a hiatus in federal executions of over fifteen years, on July 25, 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced plans to execute five inmates who had been sentenced to death under the federal death penalty statute.1 See Press Release, Dep't of Justice, Federal Government to Resume Capital Punishment After Nearly Two Decade Lapse (July 25, 2019), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-government-resume-capital-punishment-after-nearly-two-decade-lapse. To implement these executions, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) adopted a new execution protocol: the 2019 Protocol. (ECF No. 39-1, Admin. R. at 1021–75.)
On November 20, 2019, the court preliminarily enjoined the executions of four inmates: Alfred Bourgeois, Daniel Lewis Lee, Dustin Lee Honken, and Wesley Ira Purkey. (ECF No. 50, Mem. Op. (2019 Order), at 15.) The court found that these four Plaintiffs had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims that the 2019 Protocol violates the Federal Death Penalty Act (FDPA), but the court did not rule on their other statutory and constitutional claims. (Id. at 13–14.) In April of this year, a divided D.C. Circuit panel vacated the preliminary injunction. In re Fed. Bureau of Prisons’ Execution Protocol Cases , 955 F.3d 106, 113 (D.C. Cir. 2020), cert. denied sub nom. Bourgeois v. Barr , No. 19-1348, ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S.Ct. 180, 207 L.Ed.2d 1109, (June 29, 2020). That Court based its ruling solely on the Plaintiffs’ claims under the FDPA and the APA, and noted that "regardless of our disposition, several claims would remain open on remand." Execution Protocol Cases , 955 F.3d at 113 (per curiam).
On June 15, 2020, the DOJ and BOP scheduled new execution dates for three of the four Plaintiffs whose executions had been preliminarily enjoined by the 2019 Order: Lee on July 13, 2020, Purkey on July 15, 2020, Honken on July 17, 2020, and Keith Dwayne Nelson on August 28, 2020. (ECF No. 99, Defs. Notice Regarding Execution Dates.)
On July 13, 2020, the court preliminarily enjoined the executions of Lee, Purkey, Honken, and Nelson. (ECF No. 135, Mem. Op. (2020 Order) at 22.) The court found that these four Plaintiffs had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims that the 2019 Protocol is cruel and unusual in violation of the Eighth Amendment, but once again did not rule on their other statutory and constitutional claims. (Id. at 18.) The D.C. Circuit declined to stay or vacate the court's injunction, see In re Fed. Bureau of Prisons’ Execution Protocol Cases , No. 20-5199 (D.C. Cir. July 13, 2020), but the Supreme Court vacated the injunction early in the morning of July 14, 2020. Barr v. Lee , No. 20A8, ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S.Ct. 2590, 207 L.Ed.2d 1044, (July 14, 2020) (per curiam). Four justices dissented. Id. at –––– – ––––, 140 S.Ct. 2590, 207 L.Ed.2d 1044,. Hours later, Defendants executed Daniel Lewis Lee.
Two more Plaintiffs are scheduled to be executed this week, and a third next month. Because these Plaintiffs are scheduled to be executed before their claims can be fully litigated, they have asked this court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and Local Rule 65.1, to preliminarily enjoin Defendants from executing them while they litigate their remaining claims.2
In 2005, three federal death row inmates sued, alleging that their executions were to be administered under an unlawful and unconstitutional execution protocol. Roane v. Gonzales , 1:05-cv-02337 (D.D.C.), ECF No. 1 ¶ 2. The court preliminarily enjoined their executions. Roane , ECF No. 5. Four other death row inmates intervened, and their executions were enjoined as well. See Roane , ECF Nos. 23, 27, 36, 38, 67, and 68. During this litigation, the government produced a 50-page document (2004 Main Protocol) outlining BOP execution procedures. Roane , ECF No. 179-3. The government then produced two three-page addenda to the 2004 Main Protocol. See Roane , ECF No. 177-3 (Addendum to Protocol, July 1, 2007) (the 2007 Addendum); ECF No. 177-1 (Addendum to Protocol, Aug. 1, 2008) (the 2008 Addendum). In 2011 the DOJ announced that the BOP did not have the drugs it needed to implement the 2008 Addendum. See Letter from Office of Attorney General to National Association of Attorneys General, (Mar. 4, 2011), https://files.deathpenaltyinfo.org/legacy/documents/2011.03.04.holder.letter.pdf. The government informed the court that the BOP "has decided to modify its lethal injection protocol but the protocol revisions have not yet been finalized." Roane , ECF No. 288 at 2. In response, the court stayed the Roane litigation.
No further action was taken in the cases for over seven years. On July 24, 2019, the DOJ announced a new addendum to the execution protocol, (Admin. R. at 874–78), replacing the three-drug protocol of the 2008 Addendum with a single drug: pentobarbital sodium. (Id. at 879–80.) The BOP also...
To continue reading
Request your trial