Rolando Ruiz v. Lorie Davis, Director
2017 WL 875000
5th Cir.2017Background
- Rolando Ruiz was convicted of murder and sentenced to death; his execution was scheduled for March 7, 2017.
- Ruiz filed a late habeas petition in Texas state court and raised an Eighth Amendment claim challenging execution after prolonged time on death row combined with harsh conditions (a "Lackey"-style claim).
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed Ruiz’s state application and withdrew a stay five days before the scheduled execution; Ruiz then waited ~3 months before filing in federal district court.
- The federal district court dismissed Ruiz’s § 2254 petition and denied a certificate of appealability (COA); Ruiz sought a COA from the Fifth Circuit.
- The Fifth Circuit assumed, arguendo, de novo review of Ruiz’s federal claims but concluded Ruiz failed to make the ‘‘substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right’’ required for a COA and denied the COA and any stay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does lengthy time on death row combined with harsh conditions violate the Eighth Amendment? | Ruiz: prolonged delay plus solitary/conditions make execution cruel and unusual. | State: delays justified by appellate/habeas process; courts have uniformly rejected Lackey-style claims absent intent to prolong. | Denied COA; no substantial showing of Eighth Amendment violation. |
| Should the district court have applied AEDPA deference or de novo review? | Ruiz: state court misapplied federal law, so de novo review required. | State: even if AEDPA applied, relief unwarranted; district court noted either standard yields same result. | Fifth Circuit assumed de novo review and still denied COA. |
| Are last‑minute, dilatory claims subject to equitable relief/stay? | Ruiz: raised conditions claim late because of prior proceedings. | State: claim could and should have been raised earlier; courts disfavor eleventh‑hour stays that delay execution. | Court refused equitable relief; disinclined to grant relief for dilatory claims. |
| Is § 1983 the proper vehicle for conditions-of-confinement claims? | Ruiz emphasized conditions in habeas filing. | State/Court: conditions claims belong in timely § 1983 suits; habeas is not the correct avenue for such challenges at the eleventh hour. | Court noted § 1983 is the appropriate route for those claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (standard for issuing a certificate of appealability)
- White v. Johnson, 79 F.3d 432 (5th Cir. 1996) (rejecting execution-after-delay/Lackey claim)
- Reed v. Quarterman, 504 F.3d 465 (5th Cir. 2007) (addressing delay and habeas procedure in capital cases)
- Lackey v. Johnson, 83 F.3d 116 (5th Cir. 1996) (early Fifth Circuit discussion of long-death-row delay claims)
- Davis v. Ayala, 135 S. Ct. 2187 (2015) (noting solitary confinement and related Eighth Amendment concerns)