Joseph Wood, III v. Charles Ryan
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13867
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Joseph Wood scheduled for execution by Arizona on July 23, 2014; Arizona announced a two-drug protocol (midazolam + hydromorphone) and reserved the option to use pentobarbital if obtained.
- Wood (and co-plaintiffs) sought from Arizona: drug manufacturers/sources, NDCs/lot numbers, qualifications of execution personnel (non‑identifying), and records showing how the protocol was developed.
- Arizona provided limited, redacted records (drug names, expiration dates, protocol) and cited Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-757 confidentiality protections; refused to disclose manufacturers/lot numbers and personnel identities.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of the First Amendment right of access and sought a preliminary injunction staying the execution until disclosure; district court denied the injunction.
- Ninth Circuit panel reversed, holding Wood raised "serious questions" under the Press-Enterprise framework about a qualified First Amendment right of access to execution‑related information and granted a conditional stay pending disclosure of (non‑identifying) drug provenance and personnel qualifications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Press‑Enterprise right of access extends to execution‑related documents/information (drug sources, lot numbers, personnel qualifications, protocol development records) | Wood: execution procedures are publicly accessible; the requested records are "inextricably intertwined" with the public's qualified right to view executions and are necessary for informed public debate and judicial review. | Arizona: First Amendment does not guarantee a general right to government records; requested information is nonpublic, protected by state confidentiality law, and disclosure would hinder procurement and participation. | Panel: Press‑Enterprise II analysis applies; Wood raised "serious questions" that the right of access attaches to the requested information. |
| Whether Wood showed irreparable harm absent injunction | Wood: loss of First Amendment rights and mootness after execution constitute irreparable harm. | Arizona: public‑access claim belongs to the public generally, not to the individual inmate; no irreparable harm requiring delay of execution. | Panel: Loss of First Amendment freedoms is irreparable; Wood established irreparable injury. |
| Balance of equities: whether hardship tips sharply in Wood's favor | Wood: narrow stay limited to disclosure until information provided; minimal delay and significant public interest. | Arizona: strong state interest in carrying out judgments; disclosure could deter suppliers and execution personnel, harming ability to execute lawfully. | Panel: Balance tips sharply to Wood — state offered no record evidence of concrete harm from disclosure. |
| Public interest factor | Wood: public debate and judicial review of evolving lethal‑injection practices favor disclosure. | Arizona: public interest in finality and in effective lawful execution; disclosure risks harassment and loss of suppliers, undermining public safety and execution integrity. | Panel: Public interest favors upholding First Amendment principles and transparency; injunction granted subject to confidentiality protections preventing identification of individuals. |
Key Cases Cited
- California First Amendment Coalition v. Woodford, 299 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2002) (recognized qualified First Amendment right to view executions and related "initial procedures")
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (1986) (two‑part test for qualified First Amendment right of access)
- Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980) (public and press have qualified right to attend criminal trials)
- Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1 (1978) (no general First Amendment right to government information)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for preliminary injunctions)
- Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573 (2006) (stay of execution is equitable remedy; federal courts must respect state interest in enforcing judgments)
- Towery v. Brewer, 672 F.3d 650 (9th Cir. 2012) (application of "serious questions" sliding scale for preliminary injunctions)
- Courthouse News Serv. v. Planet, 750 F.3d 776 (9th Cir. 2014) (recognized right of access to civil proceedings and associated records)