West v. Parker

• Decision Date: 03 June 2019
• Docket Number: CAPITAL CASE NO. 3:19-cv-00006
• Parties: STEPHEN MICHAEL WEST, Plaintiff, v. TONY PARKER, et al., Defendants
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee

STEPHEN MICHAEL WEST, Plaintiff, v. TONY PARKER, et al., Defendants

CAPITAL CASE NO. 3:19-cv-00006

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

June 3, 2019

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Stephen Michael West, an inmate on death row in Riverbend Maximum Security Institution, brings this action for injunctive relief challenging his upcoming execution pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants Tony Parker, the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC), and Tony Mays, Warden of Riverbend, move under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. (Doc. No. 12.) For the following reasons, Defendants' motion will be granted, and this action will be dismissed in its entirety.

I. Legal Standards

Rule 12(b)(1) governs dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. "Rule 12(b)(1) motions to dismiss...generally come in two varieties: a facial attack or a factual attack." Gentek Bldg. Prods., Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 491 F.3d 320, 330 (6th Cir. 2007). "When reviewing a facial attack, a district court takes the allegations in the complaint as true, which is a similar safeguard employed under 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss." Id. "When considering a factual attack upon the court's jurisdiction, the court may weigh the evidence, and no presumption of truth applies to the plaintiff's factual allegations." Hickam v. Segars, 905 F.Supp.2d 835, 838 (M.D. Tenn. 2012) (citing Gentek, 491 F.3d at 330). "In its review, the district court has wide discretion to allow affidavits, documents, and even a limited evidentiary hearing to resolve jurisdictional facts." Gentek, 491 F.3d at 330.

To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, "'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 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). The plausibility standard is not akin to a 'probability requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). "If the plaintiffs do not nudge their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible, their complaint must be dismissed." Lutz v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C., 717 F.3d 459, 464 (6th Cir. 2013) (citation and brackets omitted). Dismissal is likewise appropriate where the complaint, however factually detailed, fails to state a claim as a matter of law. Mitchell v. McNeil, 487 F.3d 374, 379 (6th Cir. 2007). In deciding a motion to dismiss, the Court is not required to accept summary allegations, legal conclusions, or unwarranted factual inferences. Mixon v. Ohio, 193 F.3d 389, 400 (6th Cir. 1999); Lillard v. Shelby Cty. Bd. of Educ., 76 F.3d 716, 726 (6th Cir. 1996).

As a general rule, "matters outside the pleadings may not be considered in ruling on a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss unless the motion is converted to one for summary judgment under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 56." Weiner v. Klais & Co., 108 F.3d 86, 88 (6th Cir. 1997). The term "pleadings" encompasses both the complaint and the answer, Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a), and any exhibit thereto. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c). However, the Court of Appeals has held that "[d]ocuments attached to a motion to dismiss are considered part of the pleadings if they are referred to in the plaintiff's complaint and are central to the plaintiff's claim." Jackson v. City of Columbus, 194 F.3d 737, 745 (6th Cir. 1999), abrogated on other grounds by Swierkiewicz v.Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002); see also Commercial Money Ctr., Inc. v. Ill. Union Ins. Co., 508 F.3d 327, 335 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding that a district court may consider documents referenced in the pleadings that are "integral to the claims" in deciding motion to dismiss); Wyser-Pratte Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Telxon Corp., 413 F.3d 553, 560 (6th Cir. 2005) (noting that in deciding a motion to dismiss "the court may also consider other materials that are integral to the complaint, are public records, or are otherwise appropriate for the taking of judicial notice").

Plaintiff sues under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to vindicate alleged violations of his federal constitutional rights. Section 1983 confers a private federal right of action against any person who, acting under color of state law, deprives an individual of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution or federal laws. Wurzelbacher v. Jones-Kelley, 675 F.3d 580, 583 (6th Cir. 2012). Thus, to state a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) a deprivation of rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and (2) that "the deprivation was caused by a person acting under color of state law." Tahfs v. Proctor, 316 F. 3d 584, 590 (6th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted); 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

II. Facts and Procedural Background

In 1986, when Plaintiff committed the crimes for which he was convicted and sentenced to death, see State v. West, 767 S.W.2d 387, 389 (Tenn. 1989), Tennessee law provided, as it had since at least 1932, that inmates sentenced to death would be executed by means of electrocution:

Whenever any person is sentenced to the punishment of death, the court shall direct that the person be put to death by electrocution, and that the body be subjected to shock by a sufficient current of electricity until dead.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-23-114 (1982). In keeping with this law, at the conclusion of Plaintiff's sentencing hearing, the trial judge announced that "[i]n accordance with the verdict of the jury, itis the judgment of the Court that the defendant be sentenced to death by electrocution at a time to be fixed by the Supreme Court of this State." (Doc. No. 11-46 at 2.)

In 1998, the Tennessee legislature revised the relevant statute to provide that the method of execution for anyone who was sentenced to death for an offense committed on or after January 1, 1999, would be lethal injection, and that inmates sentenced to death for offenses committed before that date could elect to be executed by lethal injection by signing a written waiver of the right to be executed by electrocution:

(a) For any person who commits an offense prior to January 1, 1999, for which such person is sentenced to the punishment of death, the court shall direct that the person be put to death by electrocution, and that the body be subjected to shock by a sufficient current of electricity until dead.

(b) For any person who commits an offense on or after January 1, 1999, for which such person is sentenced to the punishment of death, the court shall direct that the person be put to death by lethal injection.

(c) Any person who commits an offense prior to January 1, 1999, for which such person is sentenced to the punishment of death may elect to be executed by lethal injection by signing a written waiver waiving the right to be executed by the method of execution in effect at the time the offense was committed.

(d) The department of correction is authorized to promulgate necessary rules and regulations to facilitate the implementation of subsections (b) and (c).

(e) If the method of execution established by subsections (b) and (c) is for any reason determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional, the law establishing the method of execution as death by electrocution is revived and electrocution shall be the method of execution in this state. All statutory procedures, rules and departmental policy enacted or promulgated to effectuate a sentence of death by electrocution shall also be revived and shall be in full force and effect.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-23-114 (1998); 1998 Tennessee Laws Pub. Ch. 982 (H.B. 2085).

The legislature amended the statute again in 2000 to reverse the presumptive method of execution for older convictions, providing that the default method of execution for all inmates sentenced to death is lethal injection, but that inmates whose offenses predate January 1, 1999, may elect to be executed by electrocution by signing a written waiver of the right to lethal injection:

(a) For any person who commits an offense prior to January 1, 1999, for which such person is sentenced to the punishment of death, the method for carrying out this sentence shall be by lethal injection.

(b) For any person who commits an offense on or after January 1, 1999, for which such person is sentenced to the punishment of death, the method for carrying out this sentence shall be by lethal injection.

(c) Any person who commits an offense prior to January 1, 1999, for which such person is sentenced to the punishment of death may elect to be executed by electrocution by signing a written waiver waiving the right to be executed by lethal injection.

(d) The department of correction is authorized to promulgate necessary rules and regulations to facilitate the implementation of this section.

(e) If lethal injection or electrocution is held to be unconstitutional by the Tennessee supreme court under the Constitution of Tennessee, or held to be unconstitutional by the United States supreme court under the United States Constitution, or if the United States supreme court declines to review any judgment holding lethal injection or electrocution to be unconstitutional under the United States Constitution made by the Tennessee supreme court or the United States court of appeals that has jurisdiction over Tennessee, or if the Tennessee supreme court declines to review any judgment by the Tennessee court of criminal appeals holding lethal injection or electrocution to be unconstitutional under the United States or Tennessee Constitution, all persons sentenced to death for a capital crime shall be executed by any constitutional method of execution. No sentence of death shall be reduced as a result of a determination that a method of execution is declared unconstitutional under the Constitution

...