Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-01017/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-01017-0/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 

ANTHONY BOYD, ) 

 ) 

Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) CASE NO. 2:14-CV-1017-WKW 

 ) (WO – Do Not Publish) 

WALTER MYERS, et al., ) 

 ) 

Defendants. ) 

ORDER 

 This court has seven 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lethal injection lawsuits currently 

pending before it, all at various stages of litigation: the instant case (filed October 2, 

2014); Arthur v. Myers, et al., 2:11-cv-438-WKW (filed June 8, 2011); Grayson v. 

Sharp, et al., 2:12-cv-316-WKW (filed April 6, 2012); Frazier v. Myers, et al., 2:13-

cv-781-WKW (filed October 21, 2013); Roberts v. Myers, et al., 2:14-cv-1028-

WKW (filed October 3, 2014); Myers v. Myers, et al., 2:14-cv-1029-WKW (filed 

October 3, 2014); and Hunt v. Myers, et al., 2:14-cv-1030-WKW (filed October 3, 

2014). All of these cases present similar claims of the plaintiffs and defenses of the 

State. This case, along with Frazier and Roberts, have motions to set execution 

dates pending before the Alabama Supreme Court. No motion to set an execution 

date was filed in Grayson, and execution dates were recently set by the Alabama 

Supreme Court in Hunt (April 16, 2015) and Myers (June 18, 2015). The February 

Case 2:14-cv-01017-WKW Document 34 Filed 03/19/15 Page 1 of 4
2 

19, 2015 execution date in Arthur was recently stayed pending a trial on May 5−6, 

2015, and a final decision by the court. 

 On March 17, 2015, the court held a joint telephone status conference in this 

case along with Frazier and Roberts. Counsel for those plaintiffs and the State 

participated.1

 Based upon the representations made by both the plaintiffs and the 

State at this conference, the court reconsidered, sua sponte, a motion made by the 

State in Arthur to extend discovery deadlines and to amend the court’s scheduling 

order. See Arthur v. Myers, et al., 2:11-cv-438-WKW (Doc. # 232.) The court had 

previously granted the State’s motion in part, extending the deadlines for expert 

reports and discovery, but had denied the motion to the extent the State sought a 

continuance of the May 5−6, 2015 final hearing. See Arthur v. Myers, et al., 2:11-

cv-438-WKW (Doc. # 235.) 

 However, following the March 17, 2015 joint status conference, the court 

reconsidered one of the grounds given by the State for a continuance of the May 

5−6, 2015 final hearing in Arthur, namely, that the United States Supreme Court’s 

upcoming decision in Glossip v. Gross will affect many of the questions facing the 

court in Arthur. Glossip will address, among other things, Florida’s lethal injection 

protocol, which is substantially similar to Alabama’s, and will likely bear directly 

 

1 Although Grayson, Hunt, and Myers were not technically part of the March 17, 2015 

telephone conference, counsel for those plaintiffs participated in the conference, albeit indirectly, 

since Grayson, Hunt, and Myers are represented by the same counsel as Frazier and Roberts.

Case 2:14-cv-01017-WKW Document 34 Filed 03/19/15 Page 2 of 4
3 

on the pleading and proof standards in Eighth Amendment lethal injection claims, 

as well as the scope and type of discovery that is relevant and appropriate in those 

cases. As a result, the court found that it was in the interests of justice to continue 

motion and discovery deadlines and the final hearing in Arthur until the Supreme 

Court decides Glossip (with a decision expected by the end of June). 

 This case involves many of the same issues and defenses as those presented 

in Arthur and, therefore, will also be affected by the Supreme Court’s decision in 

Glossip. Moreover, based on a joint status report filed by Boyd and the State on 

March 18, 2015, a delay of a few months in the progress of this litigation will not 

prejudice Boyd. (See Doc. # 33.) Indeed, the State recently moved the Alabama 

Supreme Court to hold its pending motion to set Boyd’s execution date in abeyance 

until after the Supreme Court decides Glossip.2

 The State has also represented that, 

if the Alabama Supreme Court sets Boyd’s execution date, despite its abeyance 

motion, it will not oppose a motion to stay his execution, whether in the Alabama 

Supreme Court or this court, until after Glossip is decided. Thus, in light of the 

foregoing, the court finds it appropriate and in the interests of justice to stay these 

proceedings until after a decision is issued in Glossip. 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: 

 1. This proceeding is STAYED generally. 

 

2 This motion had not been ruled on by the Alabama Supreme Court.

Case 2:14-cv-01017-WKW Document 34 Filed 03/19/15 Page 3 of 4
4 

 2. Within fourteen (14) days from the Supreme Court’s decision in 

Glossip, the parties shall jointly, if possible, or individually, if not, file a statement 

or appropriate motion that informs the court of their respective positions on the 

issues in this case in view of the Glossip decision. 

 3. The State’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 23) is DENIED with LEAVE to 

REFILE following the Supreme Court’s decision in Glossip. 

 DONE this 19th day of March, 2015. 

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:14-cv-01017-WKW Document 34 Filed 03/19/15 Page 4 of 4