FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Ap ril 27 , 20 07 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK CORRECTED [PUBLIS H]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

N o. 07- 1184 0 D. C. Docket N o. 06-00986 -CV -MH T- TF M AA RONLE E JO NE S, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant, ve rs us RICH ARD AL LEN, Com m issio ner, A la ba m a D ep ar

tm en t of Co rr ec tio ns, i n d i v i du a l l y an di n h i s o f f i c i a l c ap a c i t y, G RA N T T CU L L IV E R, W ar de n, H olm an Co rr ec tio na l F ac ili ty

in his ind ivi dua l and o f f i c i a l c ap a c i t y, D ef en dants -Appe lle es . Appeal f rom the United State s District Court f o r th e M i d d l e D i s t r i c to f

A l ab a ma (A pr il 27, 200 7) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , BI RC H and D U BIN A , Ci rc uit Jud ge s.2

DU BIN A, Circuit Judge: Pl ai nti ff A ar on L ee Jon es ( “ Jone s” ) is an A la ba m a de ath r owinm at e sc he dul ed f or e xe cu tio n onMay

3, 200 7. O n N ove m

be r 1, 200 6, Jon es f

ile d a c o mp l a i n tu n d e r

4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 c h a l l e n g i n g th e th r e e - d r u g p r o t o c o l A l ab a ma will use to carr

y out his execution by

lethal inje ction. A fter r eceiving noti ce that the A la ba m a Su pr em e Co urt se t an e xe cu tio n date of May 3, 200 7, Jon es f

ile d a m oti on t o st ay

his e xe cu tio n. T he dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d Jo ne s’ s m oti on t o st ay and de ni edin pa rt a nd gra nt edin pa rt J on es ’s m ot io n t o a lt er o r am en d t he jud gm en t. Jones appealed the dis trict court’ s judgm ent and filed in this court a m otion to stay hi s ex ecu ti on . After r ev ie win g t he reco rdan d re ad in g t he pa rti es ’ br ie fs , we af fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s j udgm en t and d en y Jon es ’ s m oti on t o st ay

his e xe cu tio n. I. BACKG ROUND T he de ta ils of

Jon es ’ s c ri m es are se t f

orth i n our opi nio n a ff

irm ing the di st ric t co ur t’s jud gm en t d en y in g J on es fed eral habe as rel ie f. See Jones v. Ca m pbe ll , 43 6 F .3d12 85 (11 th Cir .), cert. denied , Jones v. Allen , 127 S . Ct . 619 (2006). Br iefly , in N ovem ber 1978, Jones and a co-defendant brutally m urdered a m oth er and f athe r, and s ev er el y

w ound ed agr an dm oth er

and thr ee c hil dr en , a ll in the sam e fam ily . T w o of the w ound ed

c hil dr enw ho w itn es se d th e hor ro r of the se cr im es te sti fi ed

a t Jo ne s’ s tr ia l.3

A ft er aj ur y f ound Jon es gui lty

of c ap ita l m ur de r unde r A la . Co de § 13 -1 1- 2(a)( 10) (1979) (repealed 1981), the j ury rec omm ended a death sentence. T he trial co ur t ag reed wit h t he jury’ s re co m m en da ti on an d i m

po se d a de at h s en te nc e. On ap pe al , the A la

ba m a Co urt of

Cr im ina l Appe al s r ev er se d th e co nvi ct ionand or de re d ane wtr ia l purs uant t o Beck v. Al ab ama , 447 U . S. 625 , 100 S . Ct . 238 2 (1 980) , and R itt er

v . Sta te , 403 S o. 2d 1 54 ( A la . 198 1) . F oll ow ing ar etri al , the jury agai n fo un d J on es gu il ty andreco m m en de d t ha t h e b e se nt en cedto de at h. The tri al co ur t fo ll owe d t he jury’ s re co m m en da ti on an d s en te nc edJo ne s t o d eat h. On appeal, the Ala

bam a Court of Cr im inal Appeals rem anded the case to the trial co urt t o a llo wthe tr ia l c ourt t o c lari fy it s se nte nc ing or de r re gard ing the m iti ga tin g an d a ggr av at ing c ir cum stanc es . F oll ow ing thi s li m ite d r em an d, the state appe llate co ur t af fir m edJo ne s’s co nv ic ti on an d d eat h s en te nc e. Se e Jo nes v . Sta te , 520 S o. 2d 5 43 ( A la . Cr im . App. 198 4) . T he A la bam a Su pr em e Co ur

t a ff irm ed , E x parte Jones , 520 So. 2d 55 3 (Ala . 1988), and the United States Suprem e Court denied ce rti orar i rev ie w. Jo ne s v. Al ab ama , 488 U. S. 871, 109 S. Ct. 182 (198 8). InMarc h 19 90, Jon es f

ile d apos t- co nvi ct ionpe tit ionpur suant t o R ule 32, Ala. R. Crim . P ., challenging h is convictio n and sentence. T he trial court denied Jones po st-convictio n relief, and the Alabam a Court of Cr im inal Appeals aff irm ed th e tr ia l co ur t’s o rd er. Se e Jo nes v . Sta te , 753 S o. 2d 1 174 (A la . Cr im . App.4

1999 ). Jon es the n f

ile d af ed er al ha be as pe tit ionr ai sin g nu m er ous cl ai m s f or re lie f, inc lud ing am ethod- of -e xe cu tio n c la im

that c ha lle nge d A la

ba m a’ s us e of el ec tr oc uti on. I n Ju ly

200 2, w hil e Jone s’ s f

ed er al ha be as pe tit ionw as pe ndi ng, the A la ba m a L eg isl at

ur e ch an ge d th e St at e’ s m ethod of e xe cu tio n f

ro m e le ctro cu tio n to lethal injection. The statute gave death-row inm ates 30 day s to elect el ec tr oc uti on i nst ea d. A ft er that pe ri od o f tim e, the S ta te ’ s so le m ethod of ex ecu ti on wou ldbe let ha l i njec ti on . See A la . Co de § 15 -1 8- 82. 1 ( 2006 Cu m ul at iv e Supp .). In 2004, the district court denied Jo nes relief, but granted his m otion for a Ce rt if ic at e of Appe al ab ili ty

( “ CO A ”) on f

our c la im s of ine ff ec tiv e as sis tanc e of co un se l. On ap pe al , we den ie d J on es rel ie f on th e cl ai m s p res en te d i n t he COA. See Jones , 436 F . 3d at 13 05. O n N ove m

be r 1, 200 6, Jon es f

ile d a§ 19 83 c om

pla int c ha lle ngi ng the St at e’ s le tha l i nj ec tio n m ethod an d pr oc ed ur e. Jon es f

ile d am oti on t o st ay

his ex ec uti on o n M ar ch14, 200 7, a ft er r ec ei vin g no tic e on o r ab out F eb ru ar y 27, 20 07 , th atth e Alaba m a Supr em e Co ur t h adset an ex ecu ti on da te of M ay 3, 2 00 7. O n Apr il 17, 200 7, the dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d Jo ne s’ s m oti on t o st ay , f ind ing that theTh e dis tr ic t c ourt a lso de nie d a

mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt f

ile d b y the de fe nd ants 1 based on Statute of L imitations g rounds. B eca use the de fenda

nts have not filed a

cross-a ppeal a s to t hat r uli ng , w e e xpre ssl y

de c lin e to c on sid e r i t.

5 equit ie s w ei ghe d inf

av or of de ny ing astay . T w o day s late r, Jon es f ile d am oti on 1 to alter or am end the judgm ent, which the dist rict court denied in part and granted in p ar t. T he dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d th e m oti on i n or de r to c lari fy the appe al ab ili ty of it s j udgm en t. O n Apr il 24, Jon es appe al ed the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s j udgm en t and fil eda m ot io n t o s ta y

hi s ex ecu ti on .

II. D ISCU SSION A s th e Su pr em e Co urt r ei te rate d in H ill v . M cD onough , 126 S . Ct . 209 6, 2104 ( 2006 ), “ a stay

of e xe cu tio n is an e qui ta

ble r em edy . ” Astay

“ is n ot ava ila

ble as am atte r of

r igh t, and e qui ty

m ust be se nsi tiv e to the S ta te ’ s stro ng i nte re st i n enforcing its crim inal judgm ents without un due interfere nce fr om the feder al courts.” Id

. T hus, a petitioner’ s com plaint un der § 1983 d oes not entit le him to an o r d e r s t a yi n g h i s e x e c u t i o n a s ama t t e r o f c o u r s e . “B o t h th e S t a t e an dth e v i c t i ms of crim e have an im

portant interest in the tim ely enforce m ent of a sentence. ” Id . (c iti ng Ca lde ron v. T

hom pson , 52 3 U.S. 5 38 , 55 6, 1 18 S. Ct. 1 48 9, 1 50 1 (1 99 8) ). Whe n c onsi de ri ng a

m oti on t o st ay

an e xe cu tio n, w e m

ust appl y “ a str ong equitable presum

ption against the grant of a stay wher e a c laim

could have been br ough t a t su chati m e as to al lowc onsi de ratio n of the m er its w ith out

r equir ing6

en tr y of astay , ” giv enthe S ta te ’ s si gni fi cant i nte re st i n th e en fo rc em en t of it s cri m in al jud gm en ts . Ne lso n v . Ca m pbe ll , 541 U . S. 637 , 650 , 124 S . Ct . 211 7, 2126 (2004). Jone s r eque sts that this c ourt r ev er se the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s st ay or de r an d gr an t h i m a s t ay o f e x ec u t i o n p en d i n g th e o u t co m e o f h i s § 1 9 8 3 ch al l en g e t o th e S t at e’s m ethod of execution . Jones argues forcefully in his brief that the district court cl earl y e rr ed in fi ndi ng tha t he a ct ed

in a dil at or

y m an ne r in f

ili ng h is c ha lle nge to A la ba m a’ s th re e- dr

ug l etha l i nj ec tio n pr oto co l and c la im s th at he sho w s a lik el iho od o f suc ce ss o n th e m er its . H e co nte nds that he did not w ai t un til the e ve of hi s ex ecu ti on , se e H

ill v . M cD onough (“

Hill II ”) , 464 F . 3d 1 256, 125 9- 60 ( 11th Ci r.), cert. denied , 127 S. Ct. 465 (200 6); R uth er ford v . M cD onough , 466 F . 3d 97 0, 9 73 -7 4 (1 1t h C ir.) , cert. denied , 127 S . Ct . 465 ( 2006 ), but r athe r fi le d th is ca se be fo re the U nit ed

S ta te s S upr em e Co urt de nie d ce rti orar i r ev ie won h is fe de ra l ha be as pe tit ionand b ef

or e the A la

ba m a Su pr em e Co urt se t hi s e xe cu tio n d a t e . J o n e s c l a i ms th a th e c o mme n c e dh i s a c t i o n w h e n h i s e x e c u t i o n b e c a me imm in en t, an d s in ce t he n h e h as di li ge nt ly pur su eddi sc ov ery fro m th e St at e. He also takes issu e w ith the dis trict court’ s finding of dilatoriness byin essence bl am in g t he Sta te , and to so m e ex te nt th e d is tri ctco ur t, fo r an y di la to ry co nd uc t.7

T he S ta te r es pond s th at

be ca use Jon es w as dil at or

y in br ing ing his c ha lle nge to the S ta te ’ s th re e- dr

ug l etha l i nj ec tio n pr oto co l, he is not e nti tle d to astay

of execution. Fir st, the State asserts that Jones was aw are of the existence of a m ethod- of

-e xe cu tio n c ha lle nge w he n he f ile d hi s f ed er al ha be as pe tit ion . S ec ond, the S ta te arg ue s th at

Jon es kne we ith er

on the da te that A la

ba m a ch an ge d it s m ethod of execution to lethal injec tion, July 1, 2002, or on the date w hen Jones did not a ff irm at ive ly

e le ct e le ctro cu tio n a s hi s m ethod of e xe cu tio n, Jul y

31, 200 2, th atlet ha l i njec ti on was t he m et ho d t he Sta te wou ldus e to ex ecu te hi m . Furthe rm or e, be tw ee n Ju ly 200 2 and S ep te m

be r 30, 200 4, A la

ba m a ex ec ute d si x inm at es by

le tha l i nj ec tio n. Y et , Jon es w ai te d an a ddi tio na l tw o y ears be fo re f ili ng his com plaint. Finally , the S tate claim s that these ty pes of challenges have been brough t through out th e U nited States over the past several y ears, a point Jon es m ak es r ep eate dly

in his f ili ngs. T he re fo re , the S ta te ur ge s th is c ourt t o a ff irm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s st ay

or de r an d to de ny

Jon es ’ s m oti on t o st ay

his e xe cu tio n be ca

use Jones filed his challenge “ too late in the day .” Se e H ill , 126 S . Ct . a t 21 04. In a thorough and we ll-reasoned opinio n, the district court found that Jo nes wa s dilatory

in bringin g his § 1 983 action and accordingly found that th e equities did not w ei gh i n f

av or of gr an tin g astay . T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc ret io n i n d en y in g J on es ’s m ot io n fo r a s ta y of e xe cu ti on . Se e D elo v . B lai r ,Despite the f act that Jones filed this suitnear ly ten months after

we de nied his habea s 2 pe tit ion in Janu ary

20 06 , h e argue s th at he “ natur a lly be lie ve d” his Ei g hth

Am e ndme nt c la im could be f ully adjudicate d “ and an appeal determ ined without need for

a stay of execution” beca use no execution date ha d been se t when he f iled his complaint. W e think that this was an unre a so na

ble a ssumpt ion . We a g re e wi th t he dis tr ic t c ourt ’s fi nd ingof fa c t th at on e of

the mos t n atura l l y fo re s ee ab l e r i s k s fa ci n g an i n m at e w h o wa i t s t o fi l e h i s m et h o d -o f- ex ec u t i o nch al l en ge until many

months after his fe dera l habea s petition has been de nied on appe al is that an execution date wi ll b e se t du

ri ngthe pe nd e nc y

of the pr oc e e din g s, thu s n e c e ssi tatin gthe e ntr y of a sta y if full adjudication and a

n appea l are to be had. This risk is particula rly fore seea ble in Alabama , wher e the Ala

bama Supre me Court is authorized to enter a n order fix ing a n inmate’s date of e xec uti on “ at th e a pp ro pr iate tim e .” Al a . R. Ap p. P. 8 (d ) ( “ Th e su pr e me c ourt shall at the appropriate time enter

an orde r fixing a date of e x ecution.” ( emphasis adde d)). It is common prac tice in Alaba

ma for the State to seek a n execution date soon af

ter the Supre me Court denies certiorar i reviewof an inmate ’s fe dera l habea s petition. As a matter of c ommon sense, completion of collate ral re view eliminates the la st possibl e obstac le to execution, and J ones should have for esee n that the execution date would likely be set promptly

upon completion of collater al re view. Althoug h J ones sug g ests that the State ac ted inappropr iately in seekingan e xec uti on date in t his c a se , w e no te that th e dis tr ic t c ourt e xpre ssl y fo un d a s a

fa c t th at “ the re is no evidenc e in this case that the State soug ht and obtained a n execution date for

J ones in bad faith.” Jones v . Allen , No. 2:06-cv- 00986-MHT-T FM, slip. op. at 37 (M.D. Ala . April 17, 2007). Waiting to file suit until t he Supreme Court has denied c e rti orar irevie w of a n inmate’s fede ral ha beas pe tition, or, as J ones did, waitinguntil a petition for c e rti orar ihas bee n pending for ove r three months, is s imply too late to avoid the inevitable ne ed for a stay of execution. See 8 509 U . S. 823 , 823 , 113 S . Ct . 292 2, 292 3 ( 1993 ); se e als o H ause r e x re l. Craw ford v . M oore , 223 F. 3d 13 16, 1321 (11t h Cir. 2000 ). A s the district court noted, Jones filed the inst ant action nearly four y ears a fter A labam a m ade lethal injec tion its prim ary

m ethod of execution . Moreover, in his federal habeas petition filed in 2000 , Jones raised a sim ilar claim challenging electrocution as A la ba m a’ s m ethod of

e xe cu tio n. Whe n th e A la ba m a L eg isl at

ur e ch an ge d th e m ethod of execution to lethal injec tion, Jones coul d have then am ended his h abeas pe tit ionto ch al le nge le tha l i nj ec tio n a s w el l. B y w ai tin g un til N ove m

be r 2006 to 2Harris v. Johnson , 376 F.3d 414, 417 ( 5th Cir. 2004) (“The brief w indow of time betwe en the

de nia l of c e rt ior ari and

the state ’s c ho se n e xec uti on da te . . . is an in su ff

ic ie nt p e ri od

in whic h to serve a complaint, conduc t discovery , depose e x perts, and litig ate the issue on the merits.”). The district court made a fa ctual findingthat adjudicatingJ ones’s c laim in the trial court would take “ muc h mo re tha

n thre e months ” and

that a su bs e qu e nt a

pp e a l “ wo uld

a dd months , if

no t y e ars , to this li tigation.” Jones , s lip op . at 37 . We a g re e and thu s c ann ot s ay

that Jone s’ s su it w a s f

ile d in time to allow full adjudication without the need f or a stay of execution. J ones say s that he did not pursue his method-of- execution claim any ear lier than November

2006 beca

use it was not ripe f

or consider ation befor e that time. J ones ar gues that ripene ss occur

red only when ther e wa s a “strongpossibili ty ” that he “ actua lly fac ed execution” by lethal injection. We need not de termine with spec ificity when Jones’s claim bec ame r ipe. But se e Go me z v . U .S . D ist. Ct. fo r N. D. Cal . , 503 U.S. 653, 654, 112 S. C t. 1652, 1653 (1992) (“This c laim [ a cha lleng e to lethal injection] could have be en brought more than a deca de ag o.”). Howeve r, we can sa

y in any event that, e ven under

J ones’s de finition of ripeness, ther e wa s far more than a

“strongpossibili ty ” that Jones would be put to death by lethal injection by

J anuar y 2006 (whe n we de nied re lief on Jones’s habea s petition). Se e Ha rri s , 376 F.3d at 418 (requir ing method-of- execution claim to be pursued e ven whe n death by lethal injection is merely “an e vent re as on ab ly

lik e ly to o c c ur in t he futur e ” ). Ind e e d, by

Janu ary 20 06 , g ive n th e e xtre me ly sma ll ch an ce o f s ec uri n g c e rti orar irevie w in the Supreme Court, it was a ll but guar antee d that J ones wo uld die by le tha l in je c tio n. Ye t Jone s h a s o ff e re d n o r e a so n at a ll f

or his de c isi on

to w a it ne arl y te n a dd iti on a l mo nth s to fi le thi s su it. 9 f i l e h i s l e t h a l i n

j e c t i o n c h a l l e n g e , J o n e s f a c e dth e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t

th e A l ab a ma Suprem e Court w ouldset his execution d ate during the pendencyof his lethal injec tion challeng e. W e se e no c onvi nc ing r ea son w hy , a ft er A la ba m a m ad e le tha l i nj ec tio n it s prim ary m ethod of execution , Jones could not have brought his m ethod-ofex ec uti on c ha lle nge soo ne r than he did . Jon es kne wof the S ta te ’ s in te nti on t o ex ec ute him

a t l ea st b y

Jul y 200 2. “ It

w as dur ing that pe ri od – in w hic h th e ex ec uti on w as not

so m uc h an im m ine nt o r im

pe ndi ng d an ge r as it

w as an e ve nt re as ona bly li ke ly to oc cur in the f

uture – tha t [ Jone s] ne ed ed to fi le thi sAlthough it does not e x plicitly say so, J ones’s brie f mig ht be re ad to sug g est that he wa s 3 imp e de d in

fi lin gthi s su it e arl ie r b y

the fa c t th at th e State ’s le tha l in je c tio n p ro toc ol i s confide ntial and that spec ific information about it was learne d only throug h discovery . To the extent that he makes this argument, we r ejec t it. The crux of J ones’s c halleng e to the lethal injection protocol – despite other g ener al alleg ations about the trainingof the prison staf f, etc . – is that th e fi rs t of

the thr e e dr

ug s ( so dium th iop e nta l) wi ll b e a dmi nis te re d in su c h a wa y that it will not induce a suff

iciently deep pla ne of a nesthesia a

nd that, as a r esult, he will be consc ious but phy sically

para ly zed (bec ause of

the sec ond drug , a par aly tic ag ent known as pa

ncuronium br omi de ) whe n th e thi rd , e xcr uc iatin g ly pa inf ul a nd de ath- ind

uc ingdr ug(p ota ssi um c hlo ri de ) i s administered. Reg ardle ss of the conf identiality

of the State’s pr otocol, J ones ca nnot assert that he wa s unawa

re of the fa ct that the State (like a lmost every other state that car

ries out executions us ingle tha l in

je c tio n) e mpl oy s th is thr e e -d ru gc oc kta il. Any

su c h a sse rt ion

is b e lie d b y

his complaint, which alleg es “upon infor mation and belief

” that the State use s “Thiopental, Pavulon, and Potassium Chl oride . . . to ac hieve f irst anesthesia, the n para ly sis, and finally . . . car diac arr est.” Compl. ¶ 16. Thus, J ones knewof the ba sis of his claim before he filed his complaint. Moreove r, the e x pert upon whom Jones relies in pursuingthis challeng e has be en opiningon the alleg ed risks assoc iated with this particular three -drugcockta il since at lea st 2003. The fa ct that J ones knewor should have known befor e 2006 that the State use s the same thre e-dr ugcockta il as near ly ever y other state where substantially simil ar c halleng es have been ma de, couple d with the fac t that the alleg ed risks assoc iated with the coc ktail were known three y ear s befor e Jones filed his c omp la int , c omp e ls u s to re je c t any argume nt Jon e s h a s ma de that hi s atte mpt s to purs ue thi s challeng e ea

rlier we re impede d by

the sec rec y

of the protoc ol. Moreover , the district court found as a f act that Jones either wa s or should have be en aw are of the risks involved and the potential challeng e to the lethal injec tion procedur e we ll before he filed suit. See J ones , slip op. at 38-39 (citingnumerous ca ses mounting c halleng es similar to J ones’s dating ba ck to the year 2000). Jone s h a s who lly

fa ile d to de mon str ate that th is f ind ingof fa c t is c le arl y

e rr on e ou s. 10 challenge.” H

arr is , 376 F . 3d at 41 8. B y w ai tin g un til N ove m

be r 2006 to fi le his ch al le nge to the S ta te ’ s le tha l i nj ec tio n pr oto co l, Jon es “ le av es li ttl e doub t tha t the re al pur pose be hin d hi s c la im

is to s ee k ade lay

of his e xe cu tio n, not

m er el y to effe ct an alter ation of the m anner in which it is car ried out.” Id

. 3 W e ar e m ind fu l tha t the pr ope r que ry in thi s c as e is whe the r Jone s c oul d ha ve br ough t hi s c la im

“ at suc h ati m e as to al lowc onsi de ratio n of the m er its without requiring entry

of a stay .” Ne lso n , 541 U . S. a t 65 0, 124 S . Ct . a t 21 26; s ee11

also Patton v. Jones , 193 F ed . Appx. 785 , 788 -8 9 ( 10th C ir . A ug. 25, 200 6) (deny ing requested stay

of execution in § 19 83 lethal injection challenge, em pha siz ing the re w as no l eg al im pe dim en t t o f

ili ng the § 19 83 a ct ionw hil e the co llate ra l a

ppe al s w er e ongo ing ). I n answ er ing thi s qu es tio n, w e m ust be

“ se nsi tiv e to the S ta te ’ s stro ng i nte re st i n e nf or ci ng i ts c ri m ina l j udgm en ts w ith out undu e interfe rence from

the feder al courts.” H

ill , 126 S . Ct . a t 21 04 ( ci tin g Ne lso n , 541 U . S. a t 64 9- 50, 124 S . Ct . a t 21 26) . N ot o nly the S ta te , but

a lso the N el son ch ildre n, w ho w at ch ed Jon es and h is c o- de fe ndant k ill the ir pare nts and atta ck the ir gr an dm oth er

and who the m se lve s w er e sta bbe d and s hot , have astr ong int er es t i n se ei ng J one s’ s punis hm en t e xa ct ed . I f thi s c ourt w er e to g rant the m oti on t o st ay

to al lowJon es to pr oc ee d onhis § 19 83 c ha lle nge in dis tr ic t c ourt, the im ple m en ta tio n of

the S ta te ’ s j udgm en t w oul d be de lay ed m an y m onths, if

not y ears . Jo ne s, i n e ss en ce, wo ul d re cei ve a rep rie ve fro m hi s ju dg m en t. See Th om pson v . W

ain wr igh t , 714 F. 2d 14 95, 1506 (11t h Cir. 1983 ) (observing that

“ [e ] ac h de lay , f

or it s sp an , is a co m

m utatio n of ade ath se nte nc e to o ne of im pr iso nm en t” ). T he S ta te and the sur viv ing vic tim s have w ai te d lo ng e noug h f or som e cl osur e to the se he ino us c ri m es . W e w ill not int er fe re w iththe S ta te ’ s stro ng interest in enforcing its judgm ent in this case.J ones’s re ply brief a dvises that another district judge in Alabama ha s indicated the 4 po ssi bil ity

of a tr ia l on the le tha l in

je c tio n is su e fo r Jun e 26 , 2 00 7. Jone s a rgue s th at w e sh ou ld g rant him a stay

for this rea son. We cannot agree . J ones would have been e ntitled to a trial on the merits had he broug ht his suitin time to allow consideration of the merits without requiring e ntr y of a sta y , b ut h e did

no t. T hu s, the str on gpr e sumpt ion a g a ins t a sta y op e ra te s a g a ins t Jone s. Th e me re se tti ngof a tr ia l date in a

no the r c a se do e s n ot i nc re a se wh ate ve r p re e xistin gri sk there was that a

mistake will be made in his imminent ex ecution (a nd cause pain that rises to the level of c ruel a

nd unusual punishment). In fac t, the equitable c onsiderations in ea ch ca se ar e natura lly differ ent. Thus, the mer e possibility of a tria l date in another

case does not aff

ect the balanc ing of

the equities in this case. 12 Ac co rd i n g l y, we a ff

i rm th e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’ s ju d g m en td en yin g J o n es ’s m oti on t o st ay

his e xe cu tio n, and w e de ny Jon es ’ s m oti on t o st ay

f ile d w ithus. AF FIRMED ; ST AYOF EX ECU TION DEN IED . 4