United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 25-70004 FILED March 7, 2025 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce David Wood, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus Rachel Patton, in her official capacity as Assistant Attorney General,

Defendant—Appellee. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:24-CV-1058 ______________________________ Before Elrod, Chief Judge, Smith and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Jerry E. Smith, Circuit Judge: David Wood brings this last-minute attempt to delay execution per his longstanding death sentence. In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit, Wood asserts two claims that Texas’s post-conviction DNA testing statute violates due pro- cess. The district court dismissed both claims and denied Wood’s motion to stay his March 13, 2025, execution. Wood lacks standing to bring his first claim, and the district court properly dismissed his second claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Accordingly, we affirm the order and judgment of the district court Case: 25-70004 Document: 34-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/07/2025

No. 25-70004

and deny Wood’s renewed motion to stay his execution.

I. Wood was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in 1992 following the brutal murders of three young women and three teenaged girls in 1987. The victims—Ivy Williams, Desiree Wheatley, Karen Baker, Angel- ica Frausto, Rosa Maria Casio, and Dawn Smith—were found buried in shal- low graves near El Paso, and the evidence indicated that Wood had sexually assaulted them before killing them. Wood appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (“CCA”), which affirmed the conviction and sentence. Wood v. State, No. AP-71,594 (Tex. Crim. App. Dec. 13, 1995). Wood has since pursued extensive litigation in state and federal court. 1 We briefly summarize the relevant procedural history. In 2010, Wood filed his first motion for post-conviction forensic DNA testing under Chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 64.01 et seq. That law allows the convicting court to order DNA testing if the movant meets certain requirements. 2 The trial court granted Wood’s uncontested motion to have three items tested for DNA evidence. Although the DNA testing showed the presence of male DNA from someone other than Wood on one piece of evidence, the trial _____________________ 1 See, e.g., Ex Parte Wood, No. WR-45,746-01 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 19, 2001); Wood v. Quarterman, 503 F.3d 408 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1314 (2008); In re Wood, 648 F. App’x 388 (5th Cir. 2016) (per curiam); Wood v. State, 693 S.W.3d 308 (Tex. Crim. App. 2024), reh’g denied (Aug. 21, 2024), cert. denied, --- S. Ct. ----, 2025 WL 581671 (Feb. 24, 2025). 2 For example, Chapter 64 requires, inter alia, that the evidence meets certain chain-of-custody parameters, that “identity was or is an issue in the case,” and that “the request for the proposed DNA testing is not made to unreasonably delay the execution of sentence or