WinfieldClemencyComplaint PDF

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

EASTERN DIVISION
John E. Winfield, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 14-1022
)
Troy Steele, Warden, Potosi )
Correctional Center, ) This is a capital case
)
Terry Russell, Warden, Eastern ) Execution scheduled June 18
Reception Diagnostic & )
Correctional Center, and )
)
George Lombardi, Director, )
Missouri Department of )
Corrections, )
)
Defendants. )
CIVIL COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER 42 U.S.C. 1983
For his causes of action, plaintiff John E. Winfield, by and through counsel,
states and alleges as follows.
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. Plaintiff is a Missouri prisoner under sentence of death, and he is
scheduled to be executed on June 18, 2014, at 12:01 a.m.
2. This Court appointed undersigned counsel to represent Mr. Winfield
for the purpose of seeking executive clemency, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3599. See
Case: 4:14-cv-01022 Doc. #: 1 Filed: 06/03/14 Page: 1 of 16 PageID #: 1
Winfield v. Roper, E.D. Mo. Case No. 4:03-cv-192.
3. Officials within the Potosi Correctional Center have intentionally
obstructed Mr. Winfields and counsels efforts at seeking executive clemency, by
threatening and intimidating a staff member who has worked extensively with Mr.
Winfield; who describes him as among the elite one percent of all inmates; who
offers a superlative account of Mr. Winfields work habits, kindness to other
prisoners, and respect among prisoners and staff; and who wishes to make a
written statement in support of Mr. Winfields clemency petition. The staff
member now fears that he will lose his job if he offers his statement.
4. Mr. Winfield prays the Court to restrain the defendants from
intimidating or otherwise threatening any prison personnel from speaking or
writing in support of Mr. Winfields clemency petition, and for the Court to stay
the scheduled execution so that Mr. Winfield may petition for clemency
unencumbered by the defendants violations of his rights under the First, Eighth,
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. See Young v.
Hayes, 218 F.3d 850, 853 (8th Cir. 2000).
PARTIES
5. Plaintiff John E. Winfield is a citizen of the United States and a
resident of the State of Missouri.
6. Plaintiff Winfield is a person within the jurisdiction of the State of
-2-
Missouri.
7. Plaintiff Winfield was convicted in the Circuit Court of St. Louis
County of two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of first-degree assault,
and four counts of armed criminal action. He was sentenced to death on both of
the murder convictions. On May 9, 2014, the Missouri Supreme Court scheduled
Mr. Winfields execution for June 18, 2014.
8. Defendant Troy Steele is the Warden of the Potosi Correctional
Center, where Mr. Winfield has been incarcerated since shortly after his
sentencing in 1998. He is being sued solely in his official capacity.
9. As Warden of the Potosi Correction Center, Defendant Steele has
ultimate responsibility and authority over matters of employee discipline within
Potosi and proceedings in which the conduct of the prisons employees are
investigated and occasionally sanctioned with punishments that may include an
employees termination.
10. Defendant Terry Russell is Warden of the Eastern Reception,
Diagnostic, and Correctional Center in Bonne Terre, Mo. He is being sued solely
in his official capacity.
11. Defendant George Lombardi is the Director of the Missouri
Department of Corrections, with supervisory authority over Defendants Steele and
Russell, as well as authority under state law to oversee and implement the process
-3-
governing Missouri executions. See Mo. Rev. Stat. 546.720. He is being sued
solely in his official capacity.
12. The Missouri Department of Corrections plans to execute Mr.
Winfield at ERDCC on June 18, 2014, and to transfer him from Potosi to ERDCC
on an undisclosed date before the execution.
13. Defendants Steele, Russell, and Lombardi are employed by the State
of Missouri, and the actions they take and supervise as described in this complaint
are taken under color of state law.
JURISDICTION
14. Plaintiff brings this action to enforce and protect rights conferred by
the Fourteenth, Eighth, and First Amendments to the United States Constitution.
15. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331, in that it arises
under the Constitution of the United States; under 28 U.S.C. 1343(a)(3), in that
it is brought to redress deprivations, under color of state authority, of rights,
privileges, and immunities secured by the United States Constitution; under 28
U.S.C. 1343(a)(4), in that it seeks to secure equitable relief under an act of
Congress, specifically 42 U.S.C. 1983, which provides a cause of action for the
protection of civil rights; under 28 U.S.C. 2201(a), in that, one purpose of this
action is to secure declaratory relief; and under 28 U.S.C. 2202, in that one
purpose of this action is to secure permanent injunctive relief.
-4-
16. This Court also has jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1651, to
enjoin the defendants from obstructing Mr. Winfields clemency efforts in this
case and to enjoin them from executing Mr. Winfield until all his clemency
witnesses have been fully and fairly heard, and to grant such other equitable relief
that is appropriate under the circumstances.
VENUE
17. Venue is proper in this federal judicial district under 28 U.S.C.
1391(b)(1)-(3) in that (1) Defendants Steele and Russell reside in its territorial
jurisdiction, and all defendants are Missouri residents; and (2) a substantial part of
the events described within this complaint and which give rise to Plaintiff
Winfields claims occurred within this judicial district; Defendant Steeles actions,
whether individually or through his underlings, were made within this Courts
territorial jurisdiction.
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
18. Though exhaustion is not required, Mr. Winfield has properly
exhausted the administrative remedies available to him. He has properly grieved
his complaint that personnel within the Potosi Correctional Center are obstructing
his clemency efforts by threatening and coercing Potosi employees from giving
statements in support of Mr. Winfield.
FACTUAL BASIS FOR CLAIM
-5-
Background
19. Clemency is a part of the process that Missouri has adopted for the
determination of whether a person convicted of a crime shall be executed.
20. The Missouri Constitution gives the Governor the power to grant
reprieves, commutations and pardons:
The governor shall have power to grant reprieves, commutations and
pardons, after conviction, for all offenses except treason and cases of
impeachment, upon such conditions and with such restrictions and
limitations as he may deem proper, subject to provisions of law as to the
manner of applying for pardons. The power to pardon shall not include
the power to parole.
Mo. Const. art. IV, 7.
21. The Missouri General Assembly, in furtherance of the Governors
constitutional powers, has provided as follows: In all cases in which the governor
is authorized by the constitution to grant pardons, he may grant the same, with
such conditions and under such restrictions as he may think proper. Mo. Rev.
Stat. 217.800. The Governor also has discretion to convene a Board of Inquiry to
gather information, whether or not admissible in a court of law, bearing on
whether or not a person condemned to death should be executed, reprieved or
pardoned, or whether the persons sentence should be commuted. Mo. Rev. Stat.
552.070. The statute imposes a duty on all persons to cooperate with the Boards
investigation, and imposes on the Board a duty to receive and hold information in
strict confidence.
-6-
22. This Court appointed counsel for plaintiff Winfield, and issued an
order authorizing appointed counsel to receive compensation under 18 U.S.C.
3599, for representing him in seeking executive clemency. In the course of their
federal court appointed representation of Mr. Winfield, counsel have been
investigating and developing evidence in support a clemency petition.
23. Mr. Winfields case is not the first in which employees of the
Missouri Department of Corrections and the Potosi Correctional Center have
obstructed clemency efforts by limiting counsels access to prison staff who wish
to speak in support of clemency. On August 20, 2008, the Missouri Supreme Court
vacated the then-pending execution date of Dennis Skillicorn on account of such
obstruction. A copy of the courts order is attached to this complaint as Exhibit 1.
In the course of its order, the court stated as follows:
In support of his clemency petition Appellants attorneys are entitled to
gather information from prisoners and prison staff, on a voluntary basis,
consistent with the institutions need for security and the individual
interviewees need for safety.
State v. Skillicorn, Mo. Sup. Ct. Case No. SC78864 (amended order of Aug. 20,
2008).
Counsels Investigation
24. On May 18, 2014, counsel Jessica Sutton approached a current staff
member at Potosi Correctional Center and former employer of Mr. Winfield to
discuss the staff members impressions of Mr. Winfield as an inmate, as an
-7-
employee, and as a person. Sutton Declaration 1. The staff member was eager to
support Mr. Winfields clemency efforts, and on May 22, 2014, the staff member
signed a declaration in support of clemency for Mr. Winfield. Id. 2. [Attorney
Suttons declaration, which accompanies this complaint as Exhibit 2, is filed under
seal and ex parte in order to protect the staff members identity, in light of the
threats that have been made against him.]
25. In his declaration, the staff member explained that he has been an
employee of the Department of Corrections for over twenty years. Id. At the
beginning of his long career, he was a strong supporter of the death penalty and
was even a member of several execution teams. Id. After over twenty years of
service, however, he has met a few exceptional individuals who have been
sentenced to death, but who have become changed men. Id. This staff member
counts Mr. Winfield as one of those people, and described him as a
compassionate and generous person who has the ability to mentor young inmates
and change their lives. Id.
26. At Potosi Correctional Center, the staff member employed Mr.
Winfield for several years and they spent eight hours a day working together. Id.
As an employee, the staff member described Mr. Winfields strong work ethic,
initiative, and ability to take direction. Id. The staff member could rely on Mr.
Winfield, and in turn, Mr. Winfield was a lead employee, which entailed
-8-
additional responsibility. Id.
27. This longstanding working relationship revealed Mr. Winfields
character to the staff member, who saw that Mr. Winfield wants to be there for
his family and cries when he cant do anything to help those he loves on the
outside. Id. While Mr. Winfield struggled to provide for his loved ones at home,
he also cared for younger and weaker inmates at the prison. Id. He took a special
interest in looking after the inmates in the Special needs Unit, who have
disabilities, going so far as to press their clothes so that they can take pride in
themselves. Id. Other times, the staff member sees Mr. Winfield bestow small
kindnesses, such as going to the canteen and bringing back two ice creams, then
giving both of them away. The staff member emphasized that Mr. Winfield is
genuinely concerned about the well-being of others. Id.
28. Staff and inmates respect Mr. Winfield, the staff member explained,
because of his kindness and generosity. Id. People can count on Mr. Winfield to
help them if they are in need, and Mr. Winfield will give away what he has to
others without asking for anything in return. Id. Mr. Winfield also has a good
institutional record, has received very few violations, and is committed to the
institution. He works hard and treats staff with respect, which in turn earns him
respect. Id.
29. The staff member concluded that Mr. Winfield is not the same
-9-
person who committed the crime that sent him to death row. Id. He has changed
his life, become a better person, and shows his remorse for his crime in his every
day actions and the life that he chooses to live. Id. He is dedicated to helping
those who are in pain. Id. Far from being the worst of the worst, the staff
member stated, Mr. Winfield is in the elite one percent of all inmates, including
non-capital inmates. Id. In the staff members opinion, as a long time correctional
employee, Mr. Winfield does not deserve to die, and if his sentence is commuted
to life without the possibility of parole, he will continue to make contributions by
mentoring youth and helping those in prison. Id.
State-sponsored Obstruction
30. On May 19, 2014, the day after counsels initial meeting with the
staff member, he spoke with an attorney in the legal department at Potosi
Correctional Center and his supervisor concerning his desire to write a declaration
in support of clemency for Mr. Winfield. Id. 3, 4. Both individuals explained
that there was no policy prohibiting the staff member from writing a letter in
support of clemency for Mr. Winfield, so long as he expressed his personal
opinion and did not act as a representative of the Department of Corrections. Id.
31. The next day, on May 20, 2014, an investigator employed at Potosi
Correctional Center called for a meeting with the staff member and informed him
that he was a suspect in and under investigation for overfamiliarity with Mr.
-10-
Winfield. Id. 5. This is a serious offense that can result in negative employment
action, and while someone is under investigation for such an offense, that person
is not permitted to participate in activities potentially related to the investigation.
Id. Therefore, even though there is no explicit policy prohibiting the staff member
from writing to the Governor in support of Mr. Winfields clemency, he is, for all
practical purposes, barred from doing so while under investigation. Id.
32. During this May 20 meeting with the investigator, the staff member
was questioned about his relationship with Mr. Winfields familywith whom he
has no relationshipand how counsel contacted him concerning Mr. Winfields
clemency efforts. Id. 6. Because the staff member had explained to the
investigator that he had asked permission from his boss to sign a declaration in
support of clemency for Mr. Winfield, the investigator then called a meeting with
the staff members boss. Id. 7.
33. Despite having been enthusiastic about supporting clemency for Mr.
Winfield at the meeting with counsel on May 18, after being charged as a suspect
in the overfamiliarity investigation, the staff member requested that his name
and all identifying information be redacted from the declaration. Id. 8. The staff
member feared retaliation, including termination of his employment, from Potosi
Correctional Center and the Department of Corrections if his identity was made
public. Id. 8, 9.
-11-
34. On May 22, counsel met with the staff member and went through the
declaration paragraph by paragraph as the staff member instructed counsel on the
information that he wanted redacted. Id. 8. The staff member then signed the
redacted declaration, and agreed to sign an unredacted version of the declaration.
Id.
35. On May 27, 2014, the staff member contacted counsel via text
message, stating:
Jessica, after considerable debate an discussion with my wife, I have
decided that I cannot sign the [unredacted] declaration at this time due
to the current pending investigation. It is also my wish to rescind the
redacted copy that I have already signed as well. Some concerns have
arisen that [my wife] and I have due to this current investigation,
however, once I have received a final disposition of the unmerited
investigation in which is an utterly ridiculous claim of over-familiarity,
I will have no problem in signing either declaration. Sorry.
Id. 10. The staff member, then, has rescinded even the redacted version of his
statement, for fear that he will lose his job.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
Count 1: Due Process
36. Plaintiff restates and realleges the premises in paragraphs 1-35.
37. The actions of Defendant Steele and the employees he supervises at
Potosi Correctional Center, in obstructing Plaintiff Winfields clemency efforts by
threatening and pressuring a staff member not to make statements in support of
those efforts, violate Mr. Winfields right to due process of law.
-12-
38. The state-obstructed statement in this case presents compelling
evidence in support of clemency for Mr. Winfield. It shows that he is an
extraordinary inmate whom the state does not need to execute for the sake of
public safety or institutional security.
39. Due process, at bottom, requires the opportunity to be heard by the
state, and for that opportunity to be meaningful. State action that limits the
testimonials on Mr. Winfields behalf effectively silences him so that he cannot
make a full and complete case for executive clemency. See Young v. Hayes, 218
F.3d 850, 853 (8th Cir. 2000); Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. Woodard, 523 U.S.
272, 288-89 (1998) (OConnor, J., concurring); id. at 290 (Stevens, J., dissenting)
(five justices recognizing due process safeguards in clemency proceedings).
40. Mr. Winfields execution, if carried out under Defendant Russells
custody without Mr. Winfield having presented a full and non-obstructed
clemency petition, would additionally violate due process.
Count 2: Eighth Amendment
42. The Eighth Amendment to the United States constitution forbids the
imposition of cruel and unusual punishment. Death, in its finality, differs more
from life imprisonment than a 100-year prison term differs from one of only a year
or two. Because of that qualitative difference, there is a corresponding difference
-13-
in the need for reliability in the determination that death is the appropriate
punishment in a specific case. Woodson v. North Carlina, 428 U.S. 280, 305
(1976).
43. Executive clemency acts as a fail-safe against the arbitrary,
capricious, and cruel infliction of the death penalty.
44. The states intentional interference with clemency violates the Eighth
Amendment because that interference removes an essential safeguard to
constitutional application of the death penalty.
Count 3: First Amendment
46. The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of expression, as well
as the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
47. State actors interference with Mr. Winfields clemency proceedings,
as described in this complaint, prevents him from speaking fully to the Governor
in support of clemency, and to explain to the Governor why the criminal judgment
entered against him should not be enforced through his execution; such
interference also violates the First Amendment rights of the staff member who
faces threats, discipline, and even termination for speaking in support of Mr.
Winfield, and who stands in Mr. Winfields shoes for purposes of the First
Amendment.
-14-
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
48. Plaintiff seeks this Courts declaratory judgment that the actions of
Defendant Steele and those who act under his authority, in obstructing the
development of Mr. Winfields clemency petition by pressuring a key witness to
remain silent, violates the Fourteenth, Eighth, and First Amendments, and that the
state would violate these same rights of Mr. Winfield if it executed him without
affording him the opportunity to petition for clemency with the benefit of any and
all voluntary witnesses.
49. Plaintiff seeks this Courts permanent injunction that Defendant
Steele refrain from, and direct his subordinates to refrain from, any actions that
discipline, threaten, chill, or otherwise coerce any employee of the Potosi
Correctional Center from making a statement on behalf of Mr. Winfields petition
for executive clemency.
50. Plaintiff seeks this Courts order staying his scheduled execution until
Mr. Winfield has been granted the opportunity to present a complete application
for clemency free of state actors interference as described in this complaint.
51. Plaintiff seeks this Courts order granting him reasonable attorney
fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988 and the laws of the United States as well as for
costs of suit, and such further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
-15-
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Joseph W. Luby
Joseph W. Luby, Mo. Bar. 48951
Death Penalty Litigation Clinic
6155 Oak Street, Suite C
Kansas City, MO 64113
816-363-2795 (phone)
816-363-2795 (fax)
jluby@dplclinic.com
/s/ Jessica Sutton
Jessica Sutton, Mo. Bar 63600
Death Penalty Litigation Clinic
6155 Oak Street, Suite C
Kansas City, MO 64113
816-363-2795 (phone)
816-363-2799 (fax
jsutton@dplclinic.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
-16-
uprtm Qlrnzrt ul 1Lwuri
zn baur
August 20, 2008
State of Missouri,
)
)
No. SC78864
Respondent.
)
vs.
)
)
Dennis Skillicorn,
)
)
Appellant.
)
Amended Order
Appellants execution date has been set for August 27, 2008. Appellants motion
to vacate execution date on account of State agents obstruction of clemency advocacy
asserts that his federally-appointed clemency counsel have been unable to obtain
interview with prisoners and prison staff for the purpose of preparing a thorough
clemency petition to the governor. In support of his clemency petition Appellants
attorneys are entitled to gather information from prisoners and prison staff, on a voluntary
basis, consistent with the institutions need for security and the individual interviewees
need for safety.
Now, therefore, it is hereby ordered that the order setting the August 27, 2008,
execution date is vacated; and
It is further ordered that Appellants execution will be set on the first available
date following the expiration of thirty days from August 27,2008.
It is further ordered that Appellants motion for stay of execution pending petition
for writ of habeas corpus is overruled.
DaytoDay
Michael A. Wolff
Acting Clief Justice
Exhibit 1
Case: 4:14-cv-01022 Doc. #: 1-1 Filed: 06/03/14 Page: 1 of 1 PageID #: 17

WinfieldClemencyComplaint PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

WinfieldClemencyComplaint PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

You might also like