Valle v. Scott ( 2011 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
SEPT. 28, 2011
No. 11-14447 JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:11-cv-00953-MMH-JRK
MANUEL VALLE,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
GOVERNOR RICK SCOTT,
in his official capacity as the Governor of Florida,
and member of the Board of Executive Clemency,
PAM BONDI,
in her official capacity as member of the
Board of Executive Clemency,
JEFF ARTWATER,
in his official capacity as member of the
Board of Executive Clemency,
ADAM H. PUTNAM,
in his official capacity as member of the
Board of Executive Clemency,
TENA M. PATE,
in official capacity as member of the
Board of Executive Clemency,
MONICA DAVID,
in her official capacity as member of the
Board of Executive Clemency,
KENNETH S. TUCKER,
in his official capacity as the Secretary,
Florida Department of Corrections,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(September 28, 2011)
Before CARNES, HULL and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Death row inmate, Manuel Valle, appeals the district court’s denial of his
motion to stay his execution. Valle filed a complaint alleging violations of his
constitutional rights on September 23, 2011, and he requests the court stay his
execution so that his claims may be heard. Valle is scheduled to be executed
today, Wednesday, September 28, 2011, at 4:00 p.m. Because Valle has not
shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits we affirm the district court.
Valle contends his execution will violate the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution because he says he was denied
clemency proceedings or alternatively was denied clemency itself without the
benefit of a clemency investigation and clemency counsel. Valle previously
litigated clemency claims in Florida state court, and the district court questioned
2
whether the Rooker–Feldman1 doctrine precluded review of Valle’s claims in
federal district court.
We are not convinced that the Rooker–Feldman doctrine bars the exercise
of jurisdiction here. “The Rooker-Feldman doctrine . . . is confined to cases of the
kind from which the doctrine acquired its name: cases brought by state-court
losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments . . . and inviting
district court review and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon Mobile Corp. v.
Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 125 S. Ct. 1517, 1521–22 (2005).
The doctrines of issue or claim preclusion may bar Valle’s clemency claims, but
we are not convinced that dismissal is warranted for lack of jurisdiction.
Turning then to Valle’s motion to stay his execution, the district court
concluded Valle failed to meet his burden of persuasion. A prisoner moving to
stay his execution bears the burden of showing:
(1) he has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits;
(2) he will suffer irreparable injury unless the injunction issues;
(3) the stay would not substantially harm the other litigant; and
(4) if issued, the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest.
1
The doctrine is named after two cases: Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.
Ct. 149 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S. Ct.
1303 (1983).
3
DeYoung v. Owens, 646 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted).
This court previously declined to stay Valle’s execution because Valle had
not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. Valle v. Sec’y Fla.
Dep’t of Corrs., __ F.3d __, 2011 WL 3925753, at *2 (11th Cir. Sept. 8, 2011)
(per curiam). We agree with and adopt the district court’s reasoning on this issue.
A stay of Valle’s execution is not appropriate.
AFFIRMED.
4