LOCKETT v. EVANS, 2014 OK 34

Background

Condemned prisoners (Lockett and Warner) filed a declaratory judgment action challenging Oklahoma DOC practices for carrying out executions, including a statutory secrecy provision, and sought various relief; district court granted limited relief, declaring 22 O.S. §1015(B) unconstitutional.
The DOC had already disclosed its new execution protocol and identified the drug(s)/dosages to be used, but §1015(B) conceals identities of execution personnel and drug/equipment suppliers.
Both sides appealed: inmates (appeal No. 112,741) and the Attorney General/DOC (appeal No. 112,764); Oklahoma Supreme Court retained expedited review.
The Supreme Court reviewed (1) whether §1015(B)’s confidentiality provision violates the inmates’ constitutional right of access to courts and (2) whether the DOC’s execution protocol is a “rule” subject to the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).
The Court affirmed the district court on most denials of relief but reversed the declaration that §1015(B) is unconstitutional and dissolved the execution stay.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §1015(B) secrecy of execution participants and suppliers violates inmates' right of access to courts	Lockett: secrecy prevents discovery of sources needed to pursue Eighth Amendment challenges (actual prejudice)	DOC: statute protects identities of personnel/suppliers but does not hide drug identity/dosage; inmates have been given drug identity/dosage so no actual injury	Held: No violation — inmates failed to show the required "actual injury" to access to courts; §1015(B) as to identities did not bar Eighth Amendment litigation
Whether §1015(B) renders identity of drug/dosage secret	Lockett: secrecy provision used to shield source/details of execution drugs	DOC: statute does not cover drug identity/dosage; Legislature did not make drug identity secret	Held: The statute does not conceal drug identity or dosage; DOC already disclosed drug(s) and dosages
Whether DOC execution protocol is a “rule” under the APA requiring formal rulemaking	Lockett: execution protocol sets policy/practice and should be subject to APA procedures	DOC: protocol is internal management, exempt from Article I rulemaking under 75 O.S. §250.4(10) and fits APA exclusion for internal management	Held: Protocol is not a “rule” under APA; it is internal management and exempt from Article I rulemaking requirements
Whether district court and this Court had proper jurisdiction vs. Court of Criminal Appeals	Lockett: civil declaratory action in district court; relief sought under Declaratory Judgment Act	DOC/AG: some issues overlap criminal appellate domain; jurisdictional dispute with Court of Criminal Appeals	Held: District court exercised original/declaratory jurisdiction appropriately for constitutional/statutory challenges; this Court properly reviewed the declaratory judgment on appeal (but concurrence warned about jurisdictional boundaries)

Key Cases Cited

Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) (access-to-courts claim requires showing of actual injury)
Trask v. Johnson, 452 P.2d 575 (Okla. 1969) (purpose and scope of the Administrative Procedures Act)
Anderson v. Trimble, 519 P.2d 1352 (Okla. 1974) (Declaratory Judgment Act and limits re: criminal statutes)
Carder v. Court of Criminal Appeals, 595 P.2d 416 (Okla. 1978) (jurisdictional boundaries between Oklahoma Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals)
Hinkle v. Kenny, 62 P.2d 621 (Okla. 1936) (appellate jurisdiction and criminal matters)
Ex parte Meek, 25 P.2d 54 (Okla. 1933) (historic constitutional allocation of criminal appellate jurisdiction)
Conner v. North Carolina Council of State, 716 S.E.2d 836 (N.C. 2011) (recognizing internal corrections procedures as non-rulemaking)
Middleton v. Missouri Dep't of Corrections, 278 S.W.3d 193 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009) (prison operating procedures exempt from rulemaking)
Abdur'Rahman v. Bredesen, 181 S.W.3d 292 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (same conclusion on corrections procedures exemption)