Case ID: f-appx_133/html/0145-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bobby Lee HINES; Billy Frank Vickers; Kevin Lee Zimmerman, Petitioners-Appellants, v. Gary JOHNSON, Executive Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice; Doug Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division; Neill Hodges, Warden, Huntsville Unit, Huntsville, Texas; and Unknown Executioners, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 03-21173.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided June 3, 2005.
    James William Marcus, Houston, TX, for Petitioners-Appellants.
    James William Marcus, Deni S. Garcia, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas, Austin, TX, for Respondents-Appellees.
    Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Bobby Lee Hines has been convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death by the Texas State Courts for the brutal murder of Michelle Wendy Haupt. Mr Hines filed the instant lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments challenging the constitutionality of Texas’s execution protocol. The district court dismissed Hines’ action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. This court affirmed. The Supreme Court, however, vacated the judgment and remanded the case for consideration in light of Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 124 S.Ct. 2117, 158 L.Ed.2d 924 (2004). We have reconsidered the case in light of Nelson and subsequent circuit precedent. After doing so we conclude that our judgment affirming the district court’s decree should be reinstated on the alternate grounds established in Aldrich v. Johnson, 388 F.3d 159 (5th Cir.2004). For the alternate reasons assigned, the original judgment of the court affirming the district court’s judgment is reinstated. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.