Winfield v. Steele et al

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (read order for details) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment [# 19 ] is denied. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 06/13/2014. (CBL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JOHN E. WINFIELD,
Plaintiff,
v.
TROY STEELE, et al.,
Defendants,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:14CV1022 CDP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Defendants ask the court to set aside yesterday’s order and deny the stay of
execution and preliminary injunction. They argue that new evidence renders this
dispute moot. The new evidence they cite is that the declaration of Terry Cole has
now actually been provided to the Governor for his consideration in Winfield’s
clemency request.
I will deny the motion to alter or amend, as I continue to believe that the
case is not moot. Cole testified that he no longer wished to provide a statement in
support of Winfield’s clemency, and Winfield’s counsel have indicated that
because of that they did not include it in their clemency petition. The Missouri
Department of Corrections sent the statement to the Governor after having
obtained it as part of this litigation. The defendants also point out that numerous

press reports about the case are available to the Governor, should he care to
consider them in his clemency determination.
As in Young v. Hayes, 218 F.3d 850 (8th Cir. 2000), a trier of fact could
reasonably infer that Cole (and potentially other) employees of the Department of
Corrections remain under a substantial restraint as a result of the earlier actions of
the defendants. In Young, as here, publicity about the lawsuit itself would have
informed the Governor of the employee’s desire to provide a statement and what
she wanted to say, and there the superior had withdrawn her threat to fire the
employee. The Court of Appeals nevertheless concluded the issue was not moot.
“The standard for determining whether a case has been mooted by the defendant’s
voluntary conduct is stringent: ‘A case might become moot if subsequent events
made it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably
be expected to recur.’” Id. at 852, quoting United States v. Concentrated
Phosphate Export Assn., 393 U.S. 199, 203 (1968). The defendants have not met
this heavy burden. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s Motion to Alter or Amend
Judgment [#19] is denied.

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 13th day of June, 2014.
2