553 F. App'x 395
5th Cir.2014Background
- Tamayo was convicted of capital murder in Texas for the 1994 killing of a police officer and sentenced to death; state and federal habeas efforts were unsuccessful.
- He applied for executive clemency on December 13, 2013, asserting Vienna Convention violations, alleged mental retardation, and trial unfairness (witness coaching and forensic issues).
- Tamayo sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles (the Board) clemency procedures violate due process (Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments) and sought a TRO/preliminary injunction and a stay to prevent the Board’s vote and the Governor’s action.
- The district court reviewed the Board’s clemency file in camera, denied injunctive relief and an alternative stay, and found the Board’s procedures provided the "minimal procedural safeguards" required by precedent.
- On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of preliminary injunction and denied the stay, holding Tamayo failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on his § 1983 claim.
Issues
| Issue | Tamayo's Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Texas clemency procedures violate due process facially | Procedures lack fundamental fairness; national critiques warrant reconsideration | Procedures provide at least minimal safeguards per controlling precedent | Rejected — facial challenge fails under Faulder standard |
| Whether Board’s communications and withholding of opposing materials violated due process as applied | Board communicated with interested parties and denied access to opposing submissions, creating risk of arbitrary decision | Board’s practices allow communications provided notice/opportunity; Tamayo had notice and chance to participate; file review showed no coin‑flip adjudication | Rejected — no substantial likelihood of success on the as‑applied claim |
| Whether panel precedent (Faulder) should be overruled due to evolving standards and later Supreme Court decisions | Faulder’s minimal‑safeguards rule is outdated by recent authority and policy reports | Faulder remains binding; no intervening controlling Supreme Court/ en banc change | Rejected — Fifth Circuit bound by Faulder |
| Whether recusal claim (Board member Chavez) required relief | Chavez’s participation raised impartiality concerns | Chavez voluntarily recused | Moot — challenge resolved by recusal |
Key Cases Cited
- Faulder v. Texas Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 178 F.3d 343 (5th Cir. 1999) (upholding that Texas clemency process affords minimal procedural safeguards)
- Ohio Adult Parole Auth. v. Woodard, 523 U.S. 272 (1998) (plurality/concurring guidance on minimal procedural protections in executive clemency)
- Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S. Ct. 1289 (2011) (§ 1983 can lie for procedures that do not necessarily imply invalidity of conviction)
- Beets v. Texas Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 205 F.3d 192 (5th Cir. 2000) (prior Fifth Circuit holdings limiting § 1983 stays of execution)
- Dist. Attorney’s Office for Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (2009) (due process/DNA testing context; distinguishes clemency review)
- Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180 (2009) (statutory interpretation concerning counsel appointment for state clemency proceedings)
- Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008) (executive/foreign‑law commands and state compliance with international decisions)