Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-00307/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-00307-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

LUTHER JEROME WILLIAMS, )

 )

PLAINTIFF, )

 )

v. ) CASE NO. 2:07-cv-307-MEF-SRW

 )

RICHARD ALLEN, et al., )

 )

DEFENDANT. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This cause is before the Court on the Motion for a Temporary Stay of Execution (Doc.

# 18) filed on June 6, 2007 by Plaintiff Luther Jerome Williams (“Williams”). Defendants

have filed their opposition to this motion. For the reasons set forth in this Memorandum

Opinion and Order, the motion is due to be DENIED. 

On November 30, 1989, Williams was convicted of the murder of John Robert Kirk.

On February 12, 1990, Williams was sentenced and received the death penalty. In the years

that followed, Williams has unsuccessfully pursued his direct appeal and a Rule 32 petition.

Additionally, in March of 2001, he filed a federal habeas corpus petition, which he amended

at least once during its pendency. In July of 2002, while Williams federal habeas corpus

petition was still pending, Alabama changed its method of execution to lethal injection.

Williams did not amend his federal habeas corpus petition to challenge the state’s use of

lethal injection as the method of execution. In 2005, Williams’ federal habeas corpus

petition was denied and dismissed. He unsuccessfully appealed that ruling to the Eleventh

Case 2:07-cv-00307-MEF-SRW Document 25 Filed 07/10/07 Page 1 of 4
2

Circuit Court of Appeals. When that failed, he filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the

United States Supreme Court. On March 26, 2007, the United States Supreme Court denied

that petition. On April 4, 2007, the State of Alabama filed a motion with the Alabama

Supreme Court asking it to set an execution date for Williams, which Williams opposed. 

On April 10, 2007, Williams filed this lawsuit which is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 and alleges that Williams’ rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under

the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution would be violated

if the State of Alabama uses its current lethal injection protocol to execute him. By this suit,

Williams seeks injunctive relief to enjoin Defendants from executing him with inadequate

anesthesia and execution procedures that violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition against

cruel and unusual punishment, a declaratory judgment that Defendants’ execution procedures

violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, and

attorneys’ fees. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss this action on a variety of

grounds. 

On May 21, 2007, the Alabama Supreme Court entered an Order setting an execution

date for Williams on August 23, 2007. On June 6, 2007, Williams filed the instant motion

seeking a temporary stay of his execution for long enough to allow him to litigate the merits

of his claim that Alabama’s method of execution is unconstitutional. In support of this

temporary stay, Williams invokes the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Defendants oppose

the temporary stay. 

Case 2:07-cv-00307-MEF-SRW Document 25 Filed 07/10/07 Page 2 of 4
 In the alternative, Williams could have amended his then pending federal habeas

1

corpus petition to include a challenge to Alabama’s new method of execution. 

3

The All Writs Act states “[t]he Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of

Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions

and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). A litigant seeking

injunctive relief under the All Writs Act, “must simply point to some ongoing proceeding,

or some past order or judgment, the integrity of which is being threatened by someone else’s

action or behavior.” Klay v. United Healthgroup, Inc., 376 F.3d 1092, 1100 (11th Cir. 2004).

Accord, Diaz v. McDonough, 472 F.3d 849, 851 (11th Cir. 2006). 

Williams in not the first inmate facing death by lethal injection who filed a lawsuit

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and asked that his execution be stayed pending the resolution

of his lawsuit. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals faced that very same situation in Diaz.

In that case, the Circuit held that the equities did not support granting an temporary

injunction delaying the execution under the All Writs Act. 472 F.3d at 851. This ruling was

based on the Eleventh Circuit’s finding that Diaz knew or should have known of the grounds

for his claim long before he filed his complaint and therefore could not claim that he could

not have filed his federal complaint at an earlier date that would have allowed the courts to

address the complaint on the merits without the necessity of a stay. Id. Once Alabama

adopted lethal injection as its primary method of execution, Williams could have brought this

claim. He elected not to do so until years after the State of Alabama had asked the Alabama 1

Case 2:07-cv-00307-MEF-SRW Document 25 Filed 07/10/07 Page 3 of 4
4

Supreme Court to set an execution date. Like Diaz, Williams could have filed his complaint

at an earlier date that would have allowed this court to address the complaint on the merits

without the necessity of a stay. Williams in no more entitled to a temporary stay of execution

under the All Writs Act than Diaz was. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion

for a Temporary Stay of Execution (Doc. # 18) is DENIED.

DONE this the 10 day of July, 2007. th

 /s/ Mark E. Fuller 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:07-cv-00307-MEF-SRW Document 25 Filed 07/10/07 Page 4 of 4