Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca6-08-04252/USCOURTS-ca6-08-04252-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206

File Name: 08a0368p.06

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________

RICHARD COOEY, II,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

TED STRICKLAND,

 Defendant-Appellee.

X

-

-

-

-

>

,

-

-

N

No. 08-4252

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.

No. 08-00747—Gregory L. Frost, District Judge.

Submitted: October 7, 2008

Decided and Filed: October 9, 2008 

Before: SUHRHEINRICH, SILER, and GILMAN, Circuit Judges.

_________________

COUNSEL

ON BRIEF: Kelly L. Schneider, Gregory William Meyers, Kimberly S. Rigby, OHIO PUBLIC

DEFENDER’S OFFICE, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant. Matthew A. Kanai, Charles L. Wille,

OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee.

SUHRHEINRICH, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which SILER, J., joined.

GILMAN, J. (p. 4), delivered a separate concurring opinion.

_________________

OPINION _________________

The state of Ohio has scheduled the execution of Richard Cooey for 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday,

October 14, 2008. On August 1, 2008, Cooey filed a § 1983 action in the district court, challenging

Ohio’s lethal-injection protocol. On September 30, 2008, the district court, Frost, J., issued an order

granting the State’s motion to dismiss Cooey’s § 1983 action as time barred under this Court’s

decision in Cooey v. Strickland, 479 F.3d 412 (6th Cir. 2007). See Cooey v. Strickland, No. 2:08-cv747, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75630 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 30, 2008). Cooey timely appeals from that

decision. We affirm the decision of the district court.

In 1986, Cooey was convicted of two counts of aggravated murder and sentenced to death.

See State v. Cooey, 544 N.E.2d 895 (Ohio 1989). Cooey sought state post-conviction relief without

success. See State v. Cooey, 1994 WL 201009 (Ohio Ct. App. May 25, 1994); State v. Cooey, 653

N.E.2d 252 (Ohio 1995); and State v. Cooey, 655 N.E.2d 742 (1995). 

1

 Case: 08-4252 Document: 00611597212 Filed: 10/09/2008 Page: 1
No. 08-4252 Cooey II v. Strickland Page 2

In October 1996, Cooey filed a § 2254 habeas petition. The district court denied the petition

on September 4, 1997. See Cooey v. Anderson, 988 F. Supp. 1066 (N.D. Ohio 1997). This Court

granted a COA on two issues and denied relief for both. Cooey v. Coyle, 289 F.3d 882 (6th Cir.),

cert. denied, 123 S.Ct. 1620 (2003) (“Cooey I”). 

On June 10, 2004, Cooey filed a § 1983 challenge, alleging that the lethal-injection protocol

constituted cruel and unusual punishment. The district court dismissed Cooey’s claims for failure

to exhaust his administrative remedies. After exhausting them, Cooey re-filed his complaint on

December 8, 2004. On March 28, 2005, the district court granted the State permission to pursue an

interlocutory appeal on the issue of the district court’s denial of the State’s motion to dismiss

Cooey’s § 1983 claims.

On March 2, 2007, we issued Cooey v. Strickland, 479 F.3d 412 (6th Cir. 2007) (“Cooey II”)

holding that Cooey’s claim was cognizable under § 1983, that the statute of limitations for such a

claim began to run upon conclusion of direct review of the death sentence, and that the limitations

period in Cooey’s case began no later than the date when the challenged protocol became the state’s

exclusive execution method. A petition for rehearing en banc was denied. 489 F.3d 775 (6th Cir.

2007). The Supreme Court denied certiorari. See Biros v. Strickland, 128 S. Ct. 2047 (Apr. 21,

2008). 

On August 1, 2008, Cooey filed another § 1983 action in district court, alleging that

executing him under the established execution protocol, without deviating from it out of

consideration of his particular medical conditions, will violate his Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendment rights. Specifically, he claims that: (1) Ohio’s lethal-injection protocol will violate his

right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by failing to adequately address the asserted

difficulty in accessing his veins, (2) the Ohio protocol will violate his Eight Amendment rights by

failing to account for potential dosage insufficiency, and (3) the protocol will violate his right to due

process by unconstitutionally depriving him of a property interest in a quick and painless death. 

On the first issue, Cooey claims he had previously faced an execution date in July 2003, and

that in preparation for that execution, medical staff at the correctional facility noted that “Cooey’s

veins are ‘sparce’ [sic]” but that he “has good vein to right hand.” (Compl. 6.) Cooey further

asserts that his medical expert noted that Cooey is morbidly obese and that if he has gained weight

since the 2003 execution date, “‘the single “good” vein on his right hand [] may now be obscured.’”

Id. On the second issue, Cooey explains that he is taking Topamax, a treatment for cluster

headaches, which decreases his sensitivity to sodium thiopental (the anesthetic component of Ohio’s

injection protocol) and increases the risk that Cooey will be aware during the execution process.

(Compl. 7.) Cooey concedes in his complaint that if “a ‘full dose of thiopental [was] successfully

delivered into his circulation’ Plaintiff would be deeply anesthetized regardless of his treatment with

Topamax,” but “it is also likely that his use of Topamax decreases the margin of safety and therefore

makes him more vulnerable to the consequences of a partially failed thiopental administration.” 

Id. Cooey also asserts that the dosage of sodium thiopental administered per the injection protocol

may be insufficient to adequately anesthetize him in light of his significant weight. Id. 

The state moved for dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), alleging that Cooey’s challenge

was time barred under the Sixth Circuit’s construction of the statute of limitations for such § 1983

claims established in Cooey II., 479 F.3d 412. In Cooey II, 479 F.3d 412, this Court held that a twoyear statute of limitations applies to § 1983 claims in Ohio, and that such § 1983 claims began to

accrue upon conclusion of direct review in the state courts and when the plaintiff knew or had reason

to know about the act providing the basis of his or her injury. Id. at 422. As for when the plaintiff

knew or should have known about the act providing the basis for injury, this Court offered possible

dates: 1993, when Ohio adopted lethal injection as a method of execution, or 2001, when Ohio made

lethal injection the exclusive method of execution. Id. This Court did not definitively resolve that

 Case: 08-4252 Document: 00611597212 Filed: 10/09/2008 Page: 2
No. 08-4252 Cooey II v. Strickland Page 3

1

The district court noted that the record did not disclose when Cooey began to take Topamax, but that the claim

was time-barred irrespective of when he started taking the drug. 

question “because even under the later date, 2001, Cooey’s claim exceeds the two-year statute of

limitations deadline because his claim was not filed until December 8, 2004.” Id.

The district court ruled that Cooey’s first claim respecting vein access was time barred under

Cooey II. Cooey, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75630, at *4. The district court noted that in July 2003,

Cooey had advised prison personnel that he had an issue accessing his veins. Thus, the district court

concluded that Cooey knew or should have known of the vein issue in July 2003, and the two year

statute of limitations on the vein issue correspondingly expired by July 2005. Cooey argued that the

vein issue was not time barred because he has gained weight since 2003, and that weight gain has

made accessing his veins more difficult. The district court concluded, however, that the core of

Cooey’s claim was still vein access, “and the fact that there may be less access today does not

mitigate the fact that Cooey still knew of and could have filed suit over vein access prior to July

2005.” Id.

As to Cooey’s second claim, that his use of Topamax may decrease his sensitivity to sodium

thiopental and cause him to be aware during the execution, the district court ruled that it was also

time-barred because the claim was contingent on his previously asserted claim of faulty

administration, which Cooey II found untimely. Id. at *7. 1 The district court reasoned that Cooey

is not claiming that the presence of Topamax itself creates a violation, but rather pleaded that “the

presence of Topamax in the inquiry . . . as an aggravating factor to faulty administration or

insufficient dosing.” Id. at *8. As such, Cooey’s claim was a challenge to the injection protocol

“that at its core is simply a reassertion of his 2004 challenge to the procedures and drug amount the

state employs.” Id.; see alsoCooey II, 479 F.3d at 424 (explaining that among the “core complaints”

of Cooey’s 2004 case was “the use and dosage of sodium thiopental”). Thus, Cooey’s claims simply

added to the time-barred precursor claims that failed previously. Consequently, the district court

dismissed Cooey’s claims without reaching the merits, though the court expressed doubt whether

Cooey could demonstrate a likelihood of success on the claims. Cooey, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

75630, at *9.

Finally, the district court determined that Cooey’s statutory claim that he is entitled to a

“quick and painless death” under Ohio Rev. Code § 2949.22(A) was time-barred, because § 2949.22

contained the “quick and painless death” component since 1993, and therefore the time to challenge

it expired at least at the same time his Eighth Amendment § 1983 claim did. Id. at *6 n.1. 

Having reviewed the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable precedent, most notably

our decision in Cooey II, we conclude that the district court correctly held that each of Cooey’s

“new” claims is time barred for the reasons stated in its opinion dated September 30, 2008. See

Cooey, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75630. We therefore AFFIRM the decision of the district court

granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss and denying Cooey’s motion for a preliminary injunction

as moot. 

 Case: 08-4252 Document: 00611597212 Filed: 10/09/2008 Page: 3
No. 08-4252 Cooey II v. Strickland Page 4

______________________

CONCURRENCE ______________________

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge, concurring. I join in the conclusion that the district

court correctly applied the rule announced by a majority of this panel in Cooey v. Strickland, 479

F.3d 412, 422 (6th Cir. 2007) (Cooey II ). That rule compels the conclusion that the statute of

limitations has expired on Cooey’s current as-applied challenges under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as the

district court carefully explained in its opinion. I write separately, however, to reiterate my belief

that Cooey II was wrongly decided for the reasons articulated in my dissent to that opinion.

Borrowing statute-of-limitations principles from the law of habeas corpus and applying them

to the wholly distinct body of law surrounding § 1983 challenges creates anomalous results. Section

1983 claims may well expire before they have properly ripened for careful review on the merits.

Cooey’s case provides a perfect example of why this is so. The Supreme Court has made clear that

details matter in assessing the constitutionality of a state’s lethal-injection method. See Baze v. Rees, 128 S. Ct. 1520, 1533-34 (2008) (plurality opinion) (discussing various safeguards employed by the

state of Kentucky to ensure that adequate anesthesia is administered in advance of the lethal drugs

that would otherwise cause extreme pain, including the professional qualifications of the IV team,

extensive practice sessions, and the insertion of back-up IV lines). Because details in the procedure

might interact with the medical condition of the specific condemned prisoner in constitutionally

significant ways, and because the nature of these details may not be known when the prisoner’s state

appeals are exhausted, I continue to believe that the Cooey II rule is erroneous and unjust. Cooey’s

§ 1983 challenges deserve a hearing on their merits. But because I am constrained by the

precedential law of the case, I nonetheless concur.

 Case: 08-4252 Document: 00611597212 Filed: 10/09/2008 Page: 4