919 F.3d 913
5th Cir.2019Background
- Patrick Murphy, scheduled for execution in Texas on March 28, 2019, challenges TDCJ policy that only TDCJ-employed chaplains may be physically present inside the execution chamber.
- Murphy prefers a Buddhist priest as his spiritual advisor; TDCJ employs only Christian and Muslim chaplains but allows nonemployee spiritual advisors to meet inmates and watch from a viewing room—just not enter the chamber.
- His execution date was set November 29, 2018; counsel first requested chamber access for the Buddhist advisor on February 28, 2019 and received email notice of the policy on March 5.
- Murphy filed a state petition on March 20 (denied March 25), a § 1983 suit and stay motion in federal district court on March 26 (denied as untimely), and appealed to this court on March 27—one day before execution.
- The district court denied a stay; the Fifth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and emphasized the strong equitable presumption against last-minute stay requests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Murphy is entitled to a stay of execution to allow his preferred Buddhist advisor inside the chamber | Murphy argues the policy violates the Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause, and RLUIPA by denying his chosen spiritual advisor chamber access | Texas argues policy has long existed, is nonconfidential, permits nonemployee advisors to meet and observe, and plaintiff unduly delayed raising the claim | Denied—Murphy’s stay request untimely; strong equitable presumption against last-minute claims; no abuse of discretion in denial |
| Whether timeliness bars equitable relief | Murphy contends the merits justify relief despite timing | Texas stresses lengthy notice of execution date and policy; counsel delayed despite being informed | Timing fatal—court emphasizes prior notice and delays; equitable relief unavailable at eleventh hour |
| Whether the policy is ambiguous or newly asserted | Murphy implies factual ambiguity similar to other cases | Texas and the court say the policy has been clear since at least 2012 and counsel was notified of it | Policy treated as clear; lack of factual development and delay weigh against stay |
| Whether public interest and balance of harms favor a stay | Murphy asserts religious freedom and irreparable injury without advisor in chamber | Texas cites strong interest in carrying out judgments and prejudice from last-minute interference | Public interest and balance of harms do not support stay given untimeliness |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573 (2006) (stay of execution is equitable and not a matter of right; courts must respect state interest in carrying out sentences)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (stay factors: likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of harms, public interest)
- Dunn v. Ray, 139 S. Ct. 661 (2019) (timeliness is critical; vacated circuit-granted stay where applicant filed close to execution date)
- Diaz v. Stephens, 731 F.3d 370 (5th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for stay denial: abuse of discretion)
- Adams v. Thaler, 679 F.3d 312 (5th Cir. 2012) (application of stay factors in capital cases)
- Gomez v. U.S. Dist. Court for N. Dist. of Cal., 503 U.S. 653 (1992) (courts may consider last-minute nature of stay applications)
- Ruiz v. Davis, 850 F.3d 225 (5th Cir. 2017) (federal courts resist eleventh-hour claims after long-available remedies)