Edwin Turner v. Christopher Epps, Commissioner, Et, 460 F. App'x 322

Background

Turner, sentenced to death for two counts of capital murder in 1997, sought to delay execution via TRO and preliminary injunction in district court.
District court granted a 14-day TRO delaying execution to February 20, 2012, after finding Turner showed likelihood of success on access-to-courts claims.
Turner’s federal habeas petitions were denied in 2010; Fifth Circuit denied COA in 2011; Supreme Court denied certiorari on January 9, 2012.
Mississippi Supreme Court denied Turner’s motion for expert access (psychiatric evaluation and neuroimaging) on January 26, 2012, citing clemency procedures reside with the Governor.
Turner filed a §1983 claim challenging SOP 20-01-01 governing access to experts; the district court held the SOP violated his access to the courts and issued the TRO.
On appeal, the State challenges the TRO as appealable, the viability of Turner’s §1983 claim, and the district court’s analysis of remedies and public interest, culminating in vacating the TRO.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court’s TRO was appealable as a preliminary injunction.	Turner (plaintiff) argues TRO-equates to an injunction reviewable under §1292(a).	State contends TRO remains TRO; no immediate appeal.	The order is a preliminary injunction subject to appellate review.
Whether Turner’s §1983 claim is cognizable and substantially likely to succeed on the merits.	Turner argues SOP violates right of access and allows post‑conviction/clemency relief.	State argues no viable federal claim and that relief barred by state and federal limits.	Assuming §1983 viability, Turner shows no substantial likelihood of success.
Whether the right of access to the courts supports Turner’s demand for expert access to pursue relief.	Turner claims denial of expert access injures his ability to pursue relief.	SOP does not bar attempts to seek relief or clemency; no actionable injury.	No substantial likelihood that lack of access would yield a viable legal claim.
Whether due process requires access to experts for clemency proceedings.	Lack of access to experts violates due process in clemency context.	Governor's clemency process remains executive and not subject to such entitlement.	No due process right to enhanced clemency effectiveness through expert access.
Whether remaining preliminary-injunction factors justify vacating the TRO.	District court balanced harms in favor of Turner; risk of irreparable injury.	State emphasizes strong public interest in enforcing judgments and avoiding delay.	The court vacated the stay, finding abuse of discretion given the public interest and timing.

Key Cases Cited

Sampson v. Murray, 415 F.2d 61 (U.S. 1974) (TROs must be treated as preliminary injunctions when appropriate; stay considerations.)
Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573 (U.S. 2006) (States’ interest in enforcing judgments; caution against dilatory suits.)
Sampson v. Murray, 415 F.2d 61 (U.S. 1974) (TROs and preliminary injunction standards.)
Byrum v. Landreth, 566 F.3d 442 (5th Cir. 2009) (Appellate standard for preliminary injunctions; de novo review of legal principles.)
Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637 (U.S. 2004) (Stay considerations and irreparable injury in capital cases.)
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (U.S. 1996) (Right of access to courts requires actual injury to pursue a claim.)
Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (U.S. 1977) (Right of access to courts as a procedural safeguard.)
Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S. Ct. 1289 (S. Ct. 2011) (§1983 vs. habeas for access-to-evidence claims; viability depends on outcome.)
In re Webster, 605 F.3d 256 (5th Cir. 2010) (Evidence-based claims not necessarily extend to new habeas relief.)
Faulder v. Johnson, 178 F.3d 741 (5th Cir. 1999) (Procedural posture in death-penalty appeals and TROs.)