	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 99-50010
_______________________
JOHN GLENN MOODY,
Petitioner,
versus
VICTOR RODRIGUEZ, Chairman of the Texas Board of Pardons and
Paroles;
LYNN F. BROWN, Board Member; BENNIE ELMORE, Board Member;
JOHN ESCOBEDO,Board Member; GERALD GARRETT, Board Member;
JUANITA GONZALEZ, Board Member; DANIEL LANG, Board Member;
MARY LEAL, Board Member; THOMAS W. MOSS, Board member;
RISSIE OWENS, Board Member; PAUL PREJEAN, Board member;
BRENDOLYN ROGERS-JOHNSON, Board Member;
TERRI SCHNORRENBERG, Board member; ALVIN A. SHAW, Board member;
CHARLES A. SHIPMAN, Board member;CYNTHIA TAUSS, Board member;
SANDIE WALKER, Board Member;
W.G. WALKER, Board Member,
Respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas, Austin
_________________________________________________________________
January 5, 1999
Before JONES, DUHи, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
After his unsuccessful state and federal habeas
challenges and after being denied clemency by the Board of Pardons
and Paroles, Moody resorted to filing this ї 1983 claim against the
Board only three hours before his scheduled execution. The

district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment,
finding that "the Texas clemency procedure provides the minimal
procedural safeguards required by federal law." Moody v.
Rodriguez, Civ. No. A-99-CA-006 JN, at 2 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 5, 1999).
As this court recently held:
Federal courts lack jurisdiction to stay
executions under ї 1983. See 28 U.S.C. її
2283, 2251. Prisoner challenges to the result
of a single allegedly defective clemency
proceeding must be pursued by writ of habeas
corpus, not by suits under ї 1983. See,
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973); see
also Buchanan v. Gilmore, 139 F.2d 982, 984
(4th Cir. 1988); Cf. Cook v. Texas Board of
Pardons and Paroles, 37 F.3d 166, 168 (5th
Cir. 1994).
See Faulder v. Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, No. 98-51176, at
1-2 (5th Cir. Dec. 10, 1998), execution stayed pending cert.
decision, No. 98-7001, 1998 WL 852602, 67 USLW 3390 (U.S.Dec. 10,
1998).
Based on Faulder, we lack jurisdiction to consider
Moody's ї 1983 action, the only purpose of which is to delay his
imminent execution.
If our jurisdictional decision is incorrect, however, we
have also considered the arguments advanced against the
constitutionality of Texas's clemency procedures and, for the
reasons stated by the district court, reject them. See, e.g., Ohio
Adult Parole Auth. v. Woodard, 118 S.Ct. 1244 (1998). This
decision leaves no basis to grant a stay of execution pending
appeal.
2

Accordingly, the motion of the Appellant John Glenn Moody
to stay his execution is DENIED, and the district court's dismissal
with prejudice of the Appellant's claims is AFFIRMED.
Other Matters:
Within 14 days hereof, counsel for Appellant shall file
a statement showing cause, pursuant to Fifth Cir. Loc. Rule 8.10,
why he delayed filing this ї 1983 case and, more significantly, why
he filed no clemency petition on behalf of his client until
December 27, 1998, when Texas rules and federal procedure mandated
no such delay in filing. See 37 Tex. Admin. Code ї 143.43 (West
1998).
3