1 F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T M I CH A EL A N G ELO M O RA LES, P l ai nt i ff

, a nd AL B E R T GR E E NWOO D B R OWN, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. M ATTHEW CATE , D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 10- 99019 D . C . N o . 5 : 0 6 -cv -0 0 2 1 9 -JF N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f

C a lif o rn ia , S an Jo se AM ENDED O RDER

B efo re: K L E IN F E L D , M cK E O W N , an d F IS H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. 1. T hi s app ea l i n i t s pre se ntpo sture i s notabou tthe gu i l tof A l bert G re enw oo d B row n. H e w as foun d g ui l ty of aho rr i fi c c ri m e and hi s c on vi ct i on has be e n s us t a i ne d by both s t a t e a nd f e de r a l c ourt s . N ori s thi s pr oc e e di ng aboutthe c ons t i tut i ona l i ty ora va i l abi l i ty of the de a th pe na l ty , apr oc e dur e c ount e na nc e d by th e S u p rem e C o u rt . G reg g v . G eo rg i a, 4 2 8 U . S . 1 5 3 (1 9 7 6 ). In st ead , w e ad d ress the narrow i ss ue of the m anner and t i m i ng of B row n’ s e xecut i on i n a fa shi on that 

# FI LED SEP 28 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

com po rt s w i th the E i gh th A m endm ent ’ s prot ec t i on agai nstcruel and u nu sual puni s hm e nt . I n s hort , the que s t i on i s w he the rthe S t a t e ’ s ne w l yr e vi s e d thr e e - drug l ethal i nj ec t i on prot ocol , w hi ch re pl ac es a s i m i l arprot ocol the di stri ctcourt previ ou sl y f

ou nd fl aw ed base d o n evi dence thatthe prot ocol cr ea t ed atl ea st“ an u n n ecessary risk o f u n co n st i tu t i o n al p ai n , ” h as su cceed ed i n rem ed yi n g th o se f l a w s , s uc h tha tthe r e i s now no “ s ubs t a nt i a l r i s k of s e r i ous ha rm ” t o the cond em ned p ri soner. 2. T he t i m i ng of

B r ow n’ s e xe c ut i on da t e i s appa r e nt l ydi c t a t e d i n pa rtby the f a c ttha t“ the s t a t e ’ s e xi s t i ng i nve nt oryof s odi um thi ope nt a l c ons i s t s of 7 .5 g r a m s , w ith a n e x p ir a tio n d a te o f O c to b e r1 , 2 0 1 0 .” S ta te ’s O p p . B r . a t 6 , n .3 . A f te raf o u r - y e a rm o r a to r iu m o n e x e c u tio n s in C a lif o rn ia , m u ltip le p r o c e e d in g s in f e d e r a l c o u rt, as ta te a d m in is tr a tiv e la w p r o c e e d in g , a n d s ta te c o u rt ap p e a ls , it is i nc r e di bl e t o thi nk tha tthe de l i be r a t i ve pr oc e s s m i ghtbe dr i ve n bythe e xpi r a t i on da t e of the e xe c ut i on drug. A s the S t a t e a c know l e dge s , a ddi t i ona l s uppl i e s w i l l be avai l abl e i n the fi rs tqu art erof 20 11 . Id. T i m i ng i s e very thi ng and the di stri ct c ourts houl d t a ke the t i m e ne c e s s a ryt o a ddr e s s the S t a t e ’ s ne w l yr e vi s e d pr ot oc ol in a c c o r d w ith S u p r e m e C o u rt au th o r ity . 3 . P r e v io u s lyin th is c a s e , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d e n ie d M ic h a e l A n g e lo M o ra les a stay o f e x ec u ti o n , su b ject to a s er ies o f c o n d it io n s to p re se rv e M o ra les’s3

“ const i tut i on al ri gh tno tt o b e s ubj ec tt o an u nd ue ri sk of extre m e pai n. ” M oral es v. H i ckm an, 41 5 F . S up p. 2d 10 37 , 10 46 (N . D . C al . 20 06 ). W e a ff i rm ed that order. M oral es v. H i ckm an, 43 8 F . 3d 92 6 (9th C i r. 20 06 ). U nd erthe di stri ct court ’ s order , the S t at e c ou l d p roce ed w i th the execut i on usi ng i t s pre fe rr ed three d ru g p r o c e d u r e o n lyif

it a llo w e d a n a n e s th e s io lo g is t to m o n ito rth e e x e c u tio n . A l t ernat i vel y, the order permitt ed the S t at e t o em pl oy a s i ng l e- drug procedure that w o u ld a v o id th e r is ko f

u n c o n s titu tio n a l s u f

f e r in g . I d . a t 9 2 7 & n .2 . T h e S ta te e l e c t e d t o us e the thr e e - drug pr oc e dur e , butw a s unabl e t o s e c ur e the a s s i s t a nc e of a n a ne s the s i ol ogi s t . T he e xe c ut i on di d notpr oc e e d. T he S t a t e the n s ought perm i ss i on t o i m pl em entthe on e- drug op t i on . T he di stri ctcourtgrant ed pe rm i s s i on s o l ong a s the drug w a s i nj e c t e d “ byape r s on orpe r s ons l i c e ns e d bythe S t at e o f C al i fo rn i a t o i n

j ectm ed i cat i o n s i n trav en o u sl y. ” O rd er o n D efen d an t s’ M ot i on t o P r oc e e d w i th E xe c ut i on U nde rA l t e rna t i ve C ondi t i on a t3, M or a l e s v. H i c km a n ( N os . 06 219, 06 926, N . D . C a l . , F e b. 21, 2006) . O nc e a ga i n, the e x e c u tio n d id n o t p r o c e e d a n d as ta yis s u e d au to m a tic a lly . 4. T he r e a f

t e r , f ol l ow i ng di s c ove rya nd a n e xt e ns i ve e vi de nt i a ryhe a r i ng on the e xe c ut i on pr ot oc ol , the di s tr i c tc ourtc onc l ude d tha tO pe r a t i ona l P r ot oc ol 770 ( O . P . 770) , the S t a t e ’ s l e tha l i nj e c t i on pr ot oc ol , s uf f e r e d f r om “ anum be rof c r itic a l d e f

ic ie n c ie s .” M o r a le s v . T ilto n , 4 6 5 F . S u p p . 9 7 2 , 9 7 9 ( N .D . C a l. 2 0 0 6 ) .4

T h e c o u rt a ls o f

o u n d th a t im p le m e n ta tio n o f th e p r o to c o l “la c k [ e d ] b o th r e liab ility a n d tr a n s p a r e n c y ” a n d th a t “th e [ S ta te ’s ] a c tio n s a n d f a ilu r e s to a c t h a v e r e s u lte d in a n u n d u e a n d u n n e c e s s a ry r is ko f a n E ig h th A m e n d m e n t v io la tio n . T h is is i nt ol e r abl e unde rthe C ons t i tut i on. ” I d. a t981. A f t e rthe di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s rul i ng, th e r e w a s ad e f

a c to m o r a to r iu m o n a ll e x e c u tio n s in C a lif o rn ia . 5 . F o ll o w in g state c o u rt p ro ce ed in g s r eg ar d in g th e r ev ised p ro to co l’ s le g a lityu n d e rC a lif

o rn ia ’s A d m in is tr a tiv e P r o c e d u r e s A c t, s e e M o r a le s v . C a l. D ep’ tof C orrs . and R ehab. , 16 8 C al . C t . A pp . 4th 7 29 (200 8), a new l ethal i nj ec t i on prot ocol beca m e e ff ec t i ve A ug ust29 , 20 10 . S ee C a l . C ode R e gs . t i t . 15, § 3 3 4 9 , etseq . O n S ep t em b er 2 0 , 2 0 1 0 , th e C al i fo rn i a C o u rto f A p p eal , F i rst D i s tr i c t , he l d tha tthe ne w pr oc e dur e w a s pr e s um pt i ve l yva l i d, a nd author i z e d the re sum pt i on of execut i on s. S ee C a l. D e p ’t o f C o rr s . a n d R e h ab . v . S u p e r io rC o u rt, 20 10 W L 36 21 87 3 at*4 -5 (S ept . 20 , 20 10 ). 6 . O n A u g u st3 0 , 2 0 1 0 , th e S t at e h ad al read y sch ed u l ed th e fi rst e xe c ut i on i n f

oury e a r s — A l be rtG r e e nw ood B r ow n— f orS e pt e m be r29, 2010. 7. B row n i nt ervened i n thi s pendi ng fe dera l proceedi ng and the di stri ct co u rtco n d i t i o n al l y d en i ed h i s m o t i o n fo r a st ay o f ex ecu t i o n . O rd er D en yi n g S t ay, M or a l e s v. C a t e ( N os . 06 219, 06 926, N . D . C a l . , S e pt . 24, 2010) ( “ S e pt . 245

O r d e r ” ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt f o u n d th a t B r o w n ’s in te rv e n tio n a n d p u r s u it o f h is c la im s in th e M o r a le s litig a tio n is tim e ly . S e p t. 2 4 O r d e ra t 6 - 7 . 8. I n i t s or de r , the di s tr i c tc ourts t a t e d tha ti t“ a l w a y s ha s unde r s t ood, ap p a r e n tlyin c o rr e c tly , th a t e x e c u tio n s c o u ld n o t r e s u m e u n til it h a d a n o p p o rtu n ity t o r e vi e w the ne w l e tha l i nj e c t i on pr ot oc ol i n the c ont e xtof the e vi de nt i a ryr e c or d” i n the M or a l e s c a s e . S e pt . 24 O r de ra t3. T he c ourt“ i t s e l f w a s s urpr i s e d bythe D e f e nda nt s ’ de c i s i on t o s e e k a n e xe c ut i on da t e f orB r ow n w he n the ydi d . . . . ” I d. a t 6 . A c c o r d in g to th e d is tr ic t c o u rt, it is th e S ta te ’s c h o ic e o f a n e x e c u tio n d a te tha tpr e ve nt s m e a ni ngf

ul r e vi e w . I d. 9. B e tw e e n the t i m e of the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s rul i ngs i n M or a l e s a nd B r ow n’ s i nt e rve nt i on i n the c a s e , the S upr e m e C ourtde c i de d B a z e v. R e e s , 553 U .S . 3 5 (2 0 0 8 ), w h ich in v o lv ed an E ig h th A m en d m en t ch allen g e to K en tu ck y’s l ethal i nj ec t i on prot ocol , w i th the three -Just i ce pl ural i ty art i cul at i ng a s t andard r e qui r i ng the pr i s one rt o e s t abl i s h a“ s ubs t a nt i a l r i s k of s e r i ous ha rm , ” i d. a t52, a nd s t a t i ng tha t“ [ a ] s t a y of e xe c ut i on m a ynotbe gr a nt e d . . . unl e s s the co n d em n ed p ri so n er est ab l i sh es th atth e S t at e’ s l eth al i n j ect i o n p ro t o co l creat es a d e m o n s tr a te d r is ko f

s e v e r e p a in .” I d . a t 6 1 . 10 . A dd re ss i ng the ef fe ctof B az e on M oral es ’ s c as e, the di stri ctcourt s t a t e d tha t“ [ a ] l though [ i tha d] f r a m e d i t s f

a c tua l f i ndi ngs a nd l e ga l c onc l us i ons6

u n d e rth e le g a l s ta n d a r d th e n ap p lic ab le in th e N in th C ir c u it, . . . it lik e lyw o u ld ha ve m a de the s a m e f

i ndi ngs a nd r e a c he d the s a m e c onc l us i ons unde rthe

‘ de m ons tr a t e d r i s k’ s t a nda r d a nnounc e d i n B a z e . ” S e pt . 24 O r de ra t8. 11 . S i gn i fi cant l y, the di stri ctcourtun ders core d that“ there i s no w aythat the C ou rtcan eng age i n a tho roug h anal ys i s of the re l evantfa ctual and l egal i ss ues i n the days re m ai ni ng before B row n’ s e xecut i on dat e. ” I d. T hi s i s i n n o sm al l part be c aus e “ i ti s f

a i rt o s a y tha tthe r e i s no c a s e i nvol vi ng a n E i ghth A m e ndm e nt chal l enge t o a l ethal -i nj ec t i on prot ocol i n w hi ch the fa ctual re cord i s a s devel op ed a s th e r e c o r d h e r e .” I d . a t 7 . “T h e r e g u la tio n s h a v e b e e n m o r e th a n th r e e y e a r s in th e m a k in g . . . .” I d . a t 8 . 1 2 . O n c e a g a in , a s w ith M o r a le s , th e c o u rt is s u e d ac o n d itio n a l s ta yo r d e r . I n i t s or de r , the c ourtdi r e c t e d B r ow n t o a dvi s e the c ourtbyS e pt e m be r25, 2010 ( l a t e re xt e nde d t o S e pt e m be r26) , “ w he the rhe e l e c t s t o be e xe c ut e d bythe i nj e c t i on of

a l l of the drugs s pe c i f

i e d i n C a l . C ode R e gs . t i t . 15 § 3349 e t . s e q. [ the thr e e - drug pr ot oc ol ] orby the i nj e c t i on of s odi um thi ope nt a l onl y . ” I d. a t10. 13. B r ow n di d notm a ke s uc h a n e l e c t i on a nd i ns t e a d on S e pt e m be r26, 2010, f i l e d w i th thi s c ourtaM ot i on t o S t a yE xe c ut i on or , a l t e rna t i ve l y , aP e t i t i on fo r M an d am u s.7

14. T he di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s uni l a t e r a l de c i s i on t o pr ovi de B r ow n the c hoi c e of aone - drug opt i on w a s i m pr ope r . T he one - drug opt i on w a s nota dopt e d bythe S t at e i n res po nse t o the cond i t i on al order r egar di ng M oral es no r i n the new p r o c e d u r e s r e v is e d in r e s p o n s e to th e M o r a le s litig a tio n . T h u s , th e S ta te h a s n o t, in its p r o to c o l, d e v is e d o rim p le m e n te d p r o c e d u r e s f o rth e s in g le - d ru g in

je c tio n . T here i s adi sput e w hether the S t at e has suff i ci entsupp l y t o i m pl em entsuch an op t i on . In addi t i on , the S t at e a dv i se s thati t s c urre ntsupp l y of s od i um thi op ent al h a s a n e x p ir a tio n d a te o f O c to b e r1 , 2 0 1 0 . F u rth e r , th e S ta te h a s u n d e r s ta n d ab ly n o ta d o p t e d p r o c e d u r e s o ri mp l e me n t e d tr a i n i n g o n th e o n e - d ru g o p t i o n a n d c l a i ms i tw ou l d n ee d atl ea stthree days t o d o so. D es pi t e the bestof i nt ent i on s on the part of the di stri ctcourtt o fas hi on a c om prom i se and a choi ce of m etho ds here , i m po si ng on B row n such a choi ce betw ee n the new three -drug p rot ocol and a on ed ru g o p tio n n e v e ra d o p te d b y th e S ta te p la c e s a n u n d u e b u r d e n o n B r o w n a n d is b e y o n d th e p o w e ra n d e x p e rtis e o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rt a t th is ju n c tu r e . T h e r e s u lt in thi s c as e s ho ul d n otbe dri ven b y c om prom i se no r by the S t at e’ s dea dl i nes s upe r i m pos e d on the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s a l r e a dype ndi ng r e vi e w of the ne w e xe c ut i on p r o to c o l. 15 . T he di stri ctcourtst at ed i n the S ept em ber 21, 20 10 hear i ng that

“ M r. B row n i s a ss ert i ng E i gh th A m endm entcl ai m s w hi ch thi s c ou rthas bee n8

u n ab le to f

in is h litig a tin g .” C o m p a r e B a z e , 5 5 3 U .S . a t 4 1 ( “T h e tr ia l c o u rt h e ld e xt e ns i ve he a r i ngs a nd e nt e r e d de t a i l e d F i ndi ngs of F a c t s a nd C onc l us i ons of L aw . ”) . O f part i cul ari m po rt ance , “ B row n’ s f eder al cl ai m s are vi rtual l y i dent i ca l to th o s e a s s e rte d b y ” M o r a le s . S e p t. 2 4 O r d e ra t 1 . F o r th es e r ea so n s a n d in li g h t o f th is b ac k g ro u n d an d th e d istrict co u rt’s f i ndi ngs r e ga r di ng the r i s k of unc ons t i tut i ona l pa i n i nhe r i ng i n the pr i orthr e e - drug prot ocol , thi s m att eri s r em anded t o the di stri ctcourtt o d et erm i ne w hether, un der B az e, B row n i s e nt i t l ed t o a st ayof hi s e xecut i on as i tw ou l d b e c on du ct ed un der the thr e e - drug pr ot oc ol now i n e f f e c t . S pe c i f

i c a l l y , the c ourts houl d a ddr e s s the s im ila r ityb e tw e e n th e p r e v io u s O .P . 7 7 0 a n dC a l. C o d e R e g s . tit. 1 5 § 3 4 4 9 e t s e q ., a s w e l l a s the c ourt ’ s s t a t e m e nttha t , w i th r e s pe c tt o the c ons t i tut i ona l i tyof the S t a t e ’ s pr e vi ous e xe c ut i on pr ot oc ol , “ i tl i ke l yw oul d ha ve m a de the s a m e f i ndi ngs and reac hed the sa m e c on cl usi on s und erthe ‘ dem on stra t ed ri sk’ st andard” adopte d by the thr e e J us t i c e s i n B a z e . T he di s tr i c tc ourts houl d a l s o c ons i de rthe s t a nda r ds for ast ayas art i cul at ed i n N el son v . C am pb el l , 54 1 U . S . 63 7, 64 9-50 (200 4). R E MAND E D.