Smith v. Dunn
| Decision Date | 02 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 2:20-CV-1026-RAH |
| Citation | 516 F.Supp.3d 1310 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama |
| Parties | Willie B. SMITH, III, Plaintiff, v. Jefferson DUNN, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, Defendant. |
Anand Agneshwar, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, New York, NY, John Anthony Palombi, Spencer Jay Hahn, Federal Defenders, Montgomery, AL, for Plaintiff.
Lauren Ashley Simpson, Office of the Attorney General, Montgomery, AL, for Defendant.
On December 14, 2020, Willie B. Smith, III ("Smith"), a death-row inmate housed at Holman Correctional Facility,1 filed a complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the Alabama Department of Corrections ("ADOC") will violate Smith's right to exercise his religious beliefs by prohibiting the presence of his personal spiritual advisor, a Christian minister, inside the execution chamber during his execution, presently scheduled for February 11, 2021. Smith claims that the ADOC's blanket policy of prohibiting the presence of all persons who are not members of the prison's execution team, including spiritual advisors, from inside the execution chamber abridges his federal statutory rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. , his state constitutional rights under the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment ("ARFA"), Ala. Const. Art I, § 3.01, and his constitutional rights under the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.2
Smith seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendant Jefferson Dunn, in his official capacity as the ADOC's Commissioner.
On December 14, 2020, Smith filed an Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 4), requesting that the ADOC be ordered to allow his personal spiritual advisor, Pastor Robert Wiley, Jr., to not only be physically present inside the execution chamber during Smith's execution, but to pray with Smith, hold his hand, and otherwise touch Smith at the moment of his death. According to Smith, this practice "would provide Mr. Smith comfort, strengthen his resolve, and help him properly express to God his repentance for any wrongs he has committed." (Doc. 1, p. 12.)
The ADOC filed a response in opposition to Smith's Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Within that response, the ADOC also moved to dismiss Smith's complaint, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. 12.) Smith has replied to the ADOC's response to his motion and has responded to the ADOC's motion to dismiss. (Doc. 13-1.) Following these filings, the court heard oral argument and allowed the parties to file supplementary evidentiary submissions on the preliminary injunction issue. Accordingly, this matter is ripe for review. For the reasons that follow, the ADOC's motion to dismiss is due to be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and Smith's motion for a preliminary injunction is due to be DENIED.
Following a jury trial, Smith was convicted of the 1991 execution-style murder of Sharma Ruth Johnson during a robbery and kidnapping. See Smith v. State , 838 So. 2d 413 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002). By a vote of 10-2, a jury recommended the death sentence.3 The trial court accepted the jury's recommendation and sentenced Smith to death on July 17, 1992.
In 2002, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Smith's conviction and death sentence. Id. at 477. The Alabama Supreme Court denied certiorari, see Ex parte Smith , No. 1011228 (Ala. June 28, 2002), as did the United States Supreme Court, see Smith v. Alabama , 537 U.S. 1090, 123 S.Ct. 695, 154 L.Ed.2d 635 (2002) (mem.).
Smith then proceeded with both state post-conviction and federal habeas proceedings. On July 2, 2020, the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari as to Smith's habeas claims, thereby concluding Smith's appeals. See Smith v. Dunn , ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S.Ct. 188, 207 L.Ed.2d 1115 (2020) (mem.).
On November 25, 2020, Smith filed his first § 1983 complaint in the Middle District of Alabama alleging both method-of-execution and Americans with Disabilities Act claims.4 After oral argument, that case was dismissed without prejudice.5 On the same day that Smith's initial § 1983 suit was dismissed, Smith filed the present action.
Historically, Holman's Christian chaplain—an ADOC employee—was a member of the prison's execution team. (Doc. 27-6, p. 7.) Prior to April 2019, the ADOC's execution protocol required the chaplain's presence inside the execution chamber during an execution. (Id. ) In response to litigation in both Alabama and Texas,6 the ADOC amended its execution protocol in April 2019 to remove its Christian chaplain from the execution chamber. (Doc. 12, p. 12.) Therefore, under the amended protocol, a condemned inmate cannot have anyone in the execution chamber with him: not a spiritual advisor of his choosing, not the prison chaplain, not his legal counsel, nor any friend or family member such as a mother, father, spouse, or child.
But under the ADOC's current protocol, a condemned inmate may have contact visits from a free-world spiritual advisor in the days and moments preceding his execution.7 On the day of his execution, the inmate's spiritual advisor may remain with the inmate in his cell until the inmate is escorted to the execution chamber. His spiritual advisor may then witness the execution from the viewing room but is not permitted to enter inside the execution chamber. At the moment of execution, the spiritual advisor, along with other witnesses in the viewing room, can be situated less than 10 feet away from the inmate, but will be separated by two-way security glass. The ADOC's policy applies to all religious personnel, regardless of affiliation or employer, including the prison chaplain.8
In 2019, death-sentenced inmate Ruben Gutierrez filed a similar lawsuit after the Texas Department of Criminal Justice ("TDCJ") amended its execution protocols to remove its institutional chaplains from the execution chamber. Gutierrez alleged, inter alia , that the change in protocol violated RLUIPA and the First Amendment.9 Gutierrez requested an accommodation allowing his chosen spiritual advisor to be permitted inside the execution chamber. In the alternative, Gutierrez asked that the TDCJ revert to its long-standing policy of allowing the institutional chaplain's presence inside the chamber during his execution. The district court found that Gutierrez had shown a likelihood of success on the merits of either his execution-chamber claims or the DNA-testing claims raised in the same litigation.10 The district court denied the TDCJ's motion to dismiss and granted Gutierrez's motion to stay his execution.
On appeal, the Fifth Circuit disagreed with the trial court, holding in part that Gutierrez failed to make a strong showing of success on the RLUIPA claim, noting that the TDCJ's policy did not substantially burden Gutierrez's ability to exercise his religion. Gutierrez v. Saenz , 818 F. App'x 309, 314-15 (5th Cir. 2020). Gutierrez then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court.
In June 2020, the Supreme Court granted a stay of execution and ordered the district court to develop a narrow factual issue: "whether serious security problems would result if a prisoner facing execution is permitted to choose the spiritual advisor the prisoner wishes to have in his immediate physical presence during the execution." Gutierrez v. Saenz , ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S. Ct. 127, 128, 207 L.Ed.2d 1075 (2020) (mem).
In compliance with this order, the district court considered the evidence and briefs submitted by the parties and concluded that "no serious security problems would result" if death-sentenced inmates were permitted to have the spiritual advisors of their choosing to be present with them inside the execution chamber.11
Upon review of the trial court's findings, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the Fifth Circuit's order, and remanded the case to the Fifth Circuit with instructions to remand to the district court for "further and prompt consideration" of Gutierrez's claims regarding the presence of a spiritual advisor inside the execution chamber. Gutierrez v. Saenz , No. 19-8695, ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S.Ct. 1260, 209 L.Ed.2d 4 (Jan. 25, 2021) (mem).
The Court has original subject matter jurisdiction of this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Personal jurisdiction and venue are uncontested, and the Court concludes that venue properly lies in the Middle District of Alabama. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss tests the sufficiency of the complaint against the legal standard set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 : "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ " Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ).
In ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, the court must accept well-pleaded facts as true, but the court is not required to accept a plaintiff's legal conclusions. Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. A complaint may be dismissed if the facts as pled do not state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. See id. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barbee v. Collier
...his spiritual advisor "to pray with [him], hold his hand, and otherwise touch [him] at the moment of his death." Smith v. Dunn , 516 F.Supp.3d 1310 (M.D. Ala. 2021). The Eleventh Circuit entered an order staying the inmate's execution based on his religious-liberty claims. See Smith v. Comm......