IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

WILLIE MCNAIR, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) No. 2:06-cv-695-WKW 

 ) 

RICHARD ALLEN, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

________________________________ 

 ) 

JAMES CALLAHAN, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) No. 2:06-cv-919-WKW 

 ) 

RICHARD ALLEN , et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISMISSAL BASED ON THE 

DOCTRINE OF LACHES 

 The defendants contend that the plaintiffs’ claims are 

due to be dismissed based on the doctrine of laches. A 

claim is barred by the doctrine of laches if the following 

three elements are present: “(1) a delay in asserting a 

right or a claim; (2) that the delay was not excusable; and 

(3) that there was undue prejudice to the party against 

whom the claim is asserted.” Kason Indus., Inc. v.

Component hardware Group, Inc., 120 F.3d 1199, 1203 (11th 

Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 53 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 1 of 5
2

Cir. 1997). The first two elements are met here for the 

reasons stated in defendants’ earlier filings: Plaintiffs 

knew or should have known of his claim in 2002 when his 

sentence changed to lethal injection by operation of law. 

Doc. 43 at 3-7, Doc. 48 at 4. The plaintiffs could have 

asserted their claims much earlier and there is no excuse 

for their having failed to do so. See Docs. 43, 48. 

 The unreasonable delay has likewise caused defendants 

undue prejudice. The unreasonable delay by the plaintiffs 

in filing their lethal-injection challenge impacts the 

State of Alabama’s ability to carry out the dulyadjudicated sentences in these cases. The plaintiffs’ 

unreasonable delay in filing their lethal-injection

challenge is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s holding 

that “[b]oth the State and the victims of crime have an 

important interest in the timely enforcement of a 

sentence.” Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. __, __, 126 S.Ct. 

2096, 2104 (2006). Alabama has a strong interest in 

proceeding with the judgment that Callahan and McNair be 

executed for the capital murders for which they were 

convicted. The Supreme Court has recognized that in 

weighing equitable considerations, a court “must take into 

Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 53 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 2 of 5
3

consideration the State’s strong interest in proceeding 

with its judgments and ... attempts at manipulation.” Nelson 

v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 649, 124 S.Ct. 2117 

(2004)(quotation omitted). Alabama has a “significant 

interest in meting out a sentence of death in a timely 

fashion.” Id. at 644. 

 Similarly, the public has an interest in seeing 

Callahan and McNair held accountable for their crimes. 

Callahan brutally kidnapped, raped, and murdered Becky 

Howell over 26 years ago, and it has been approximately 19 

years ago since Callahan was sentenced to death. Callahan 

v. Campbell, 427 F.3d 897, 903-04 (11th Cir. 2005). McNair 

brutally murdered and robbed Ella Foy Riley over 17 years 

ago, and it has been approximately 13 years ago since 

McNair was sentenced to death. McNair v. Campbell, 416 

F.3d 1291, 1296 (11th Cir. 2005). 

 Thus, the State and the victims of plaintiffs’ crimes 

have a recognized and powerful interest in the timely 

enforcement of the plaintiffs’ duly-adjudicated sentences. 

This interest is impeded, and thus prejudice is caused, by 

the plaintiffs’ unreasonable delay in filing their lethalinjection challenge. In addition, because of the 

Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 53 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 3 of 5
4

plaintiffs’ unreasonable delay, the defendants suffer 

prejudice because of being forced to choose whether to 

delay even further in moving for an execution date, or 

procuring such a date and engaging in the inevitable, and 

expensive, litigation surrounding a motion for a stay of 

execution. 

 Thus, the plaintiffs’ claims are time-barred whether 

the appropriate analysis is the statute of limitations or 

the doctrine of laches. The defendants adopt and 

incorporate Docs. 43 and 48, and the exhibits thereto, as 

if set forth fully herein. 

Respectfully submitted, 

TROY KING (KIN047) 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY: 

s/ J. Clayton Crenshaw 

J. Clayton Crenshaw (CRE007)

Assistant Attorney General 

s/ James W. Davis 

James W. Davis (DAV103)

Assistant Attorney General 

OF COUNSEL: 

Office of the Attorney General 

11 South Union Street 

Montgomery, AL 36130 

(334) 242-7300 

(334) 353-8440 Fax 

Email: ccrenshaw@ago.state.al.us 

jimdavis@ago.state.al.us 

Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 53 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 4 of 5
5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that on the 24th day of April, 2007, 

a copy of the foregoing has been electronically filed with 

the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will 

electronically send a copy of the same to the following: 

Stephanie L. Cohen, Esq. 

Vincent R. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Esq. 

Heather K. McDevitt, Esq. 

White & Case LLP 

1155 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, NY 10036 

Randall Susskind, Esq. 

Cathleen Price, Esq. 

Equal Justice Initiative of Alabama 

122 Commerce Street 

Montgomery, AL 36104 

OF COUNSEL 

S/ J. Clayton Crenshaw 

J. Clayton Crenshaw (CRE007)

Assistant Attorney General 

office of the Attorney General 

11 South Union Street 

Montgomery, AL 36130 

(334) 242-7300 

(334) 353-8440 Fax 

Email: ccrenshaw@ago.state.al.us

Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 53 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 5 of 5