Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00245/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00245-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert Towery, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Janice K. Brewer, Governor of Arizona, et

al.

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-245-PHX-ROS

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER

Plaintiffs, Arizona prisoners under sentence of death, have filed a civil rights

Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court will order Defendants to respond to the

Complaint. 

I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against

a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff has raised

claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).

Case 2:12-cv-00245-NVW Document 5 Filed 02/07/12 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

- 2 -

II. Complaint

In their five-count Complaint, Plaintiffs sue the following Defendants: Arizona

Governor Janice K. Brewer, Arizona Department of Corrections Director Charles L. Ryan,

Eyman Unit Warden Ron Credio, Florence Unit Warden Lance Hetmer, various unidentified

members of the IV and Special Operations Teams, and Does 1-25. In Claim One, Plaintiffs

allege that disparate treatment across executions violates the Equal Protection Clause. In

Claim Two, Plaintiffs allege that Arizona’s lethal injection protocol lacks adequate

safeguards to protect against the risk of pain, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. In

Claim Three, Plaintiffs allege that administration of a three-drug protocol using imported

pancuronium bromide violates their rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

In Claim Four, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have failed to provide adequate notice of the

specific drugs and the type of venous access that will be used in executions, in violation of

the Fourteenth Amendment. In Claim Five, Plaintiffs allege that Arizona’s lethal injection

protocol violates their rights to due process and to access to the courts, in violation of the

First, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. In their Prayer for Relief, Plaintiffs seek

declaratory and injunctive relief. The Court has reviewed the Complaint and finds that

Plaintiffs have stated claims for relief. Therefore, the Court will require Defendants to

answer or otherwise respond to all five counts in the Complaint.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants must answer or otherwise respond to the

Complaint within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Rule 12(a) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. 

DATED this 7th day of February, 2012.

Case 2:12-cv-00245-NVW Document 5 Filed 02/07/12 Page 2 of 2