### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT October 08, 20 03 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 03- 1509 5

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D . C. D oc ke t N o. 03- T -1 008 DAVID LARRY NELSON, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant, ve rs us DO NA L C AMP BE LL , in his indiv idual an d of fi ci al c ap ac ity

a s C om m iss ion er of the A la ba m a D ep ar

tm en t of Co rr ec tio ns, GRA NT T C UL LI VE R, 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

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (O ct obe r 8, 200 3) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , H U L L and W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. AN DE RSO N, Circuit Judge: D av id L ar

ry N el son is an A la

ba m a inm at e co nvi ct ed

of c ap ita l m ur de r an d sentenced to death. O n October 6, 2003 , thre e day s prior to his scheduledThe " cut-down" proce dure w ould require makinga two inch incision in Nelson' s upper 1 arm for the purpose of

locatinga per iphera l vein to perfor m a ce ntral line proc edure . The proce dure w ould be per formed usinglocal ane sthetic. 2 ex ec uti on, N el son fi le d a42 U
. S. C. § 19 83 a ct ionin the Mi ddl e D istri ct of A la ba m a. I n hi s c om

pla int , N el son as se rt s th at he ha s se ve re ly

c om pr om ise d ve ins
an d th at A la ba m a' s pr opos ed

use of a"c ut- down" pr oc ed

ur e to g ai n ve nous a cc es s (i f ac ce ss t o asui ta

ble ve in c an not

be a ch ie ve d) a s part

of the le tha l i nj ec tio n pr oc ed ur e co nst itu te s c ru el and unusu al pun ish m en t i n vi olatio n of the E igh th and Fo urte en th A m en dm en ts. N el son furthe r as se rt s astate lawc la im , pur suant t o 28 1 U . S. C. § 13 67, a lle gin g th at he ha s be ende nie d a cc es s to his phy sic ian invio la tio n of A la ba m a law . A m ong oth er

r el ie f, N el son re que sts an or de r gr an tin g in j unc tiv e relief and stay ing hi s execution schedu led for O ctober 9, 2003. B y order dated O ct obe r 7, 200 3, the dis tr ic t c ourt di sm iss ed N el son' s c om

pla int f or la ck of j u r i s d i c t i o n . We a f

f i rm. As w e stated in Hill v. Hopper, 112 F.3d 1088 , 1088-1089 (11th Cir. 1997), "a prisoner m ay

not circum

vent the rules regarding second or successive habeas pe tit ion s by

f ili ng a § 19 83 c la im
. " S ee a lso F el ke r v. T ur pin , 101 F . 3d 9 5 ( 11th Cir. 1996 ); Spivey

v. S tate Bd. of Par dons and Paroles, 279 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2002 ). T he f ull pr oc ed

ur al his tor

y of thi s c as e pr ior

to the ins tant § 198 3 c la im is se t ou tAd dit ion a lly , N e lso n, thr ou g h h is c ouns e l, a c kn ow le dg e d th at he ha d e xha us te d a ll 2 ava ila ble ha be a s c or pu s r e lie f a

nd that he wo uld

have to g e t pe rm iss ion

fr om t he El e ve nth

Cir c uit in o rd e r t o f

ile a se c on d o r s uc c e ssi ve ha

be a s p e tit ion . T r. of

In- Cha mbe rs Te l. C on fe re nc e , O c t. 7, 2003, at *22-23. We say "possible" beca

use Alaba ma first propose s to ga in venous ac cess through a 3 fe m o ra l v ei ni nNe l s o n 's th i ghan d i f u n s u cc es s fu l th ro u ghth e e x t ern al caro t i d art ery i nNe l s o n 's ne c k, ne ith e r o f whic h p ro c e dure Ne lso n c ha lle ng e s. I t is on ly if ve no us a c c e ss c ann ot b e re a dil y g ained in those two a

rea s that Alabama

proposes to use the third a lternative of the " cut-down" proce dure. 3 in de ta il in Nels on v. Al ab am a, 29 2 F .3d12 91 , 12 93 -1 29 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2)
. H ow ev er , f

or the pur pose s of thi s a ppe al it is suf fi ci en t t o st at e that N el son pr ev iou sly

f ile d af ed er al ha be as pe tit ionon Apr il 14, 199 7, a lle gin g e rr or due to the tr ia l c ourts f

ai lur e to c ondu ct

aF ar ettahe ar ing pr ior

to al low ing him

to proceed pro se at his 1994 re-sentencing hearing. N elson v. Alabam a, 292 F.3d at 1294
. 2 Beca

use Nelson has previousl y filed a f ederal habea s petition , w e ar e confronted with the questio n of whether Ne lson's com plaint seeking relief

under 42 U
. S. C. § 19 83 c onst itu te s th e "f unc tio na l e qui va le nt" of

ase co nd o r suc ce ssi ve habe as pe ti ti on , su ch th atitwou ldbe su bjec t t o t he req ui rem en ts 28 U.S.C. § 2244
. F uga te v. D ep t. of Co rr s. , 301 F . 3d 1 287, 128 8 ( 11th C ir
. 200 2) ; H ill v. H oppe r, 112 F . 3d at 10 89; F el ke r v. T ur pin , 101 F . 3d at 96
. N el son' s § 1 983 cl ai m al le ge s th at

A la ba m a' s pr opos ed

pos sib le use of

the "c ut- down" pr oc ed

ur e to g ai n 3
ve nous a cc es s a s part

of the le tha l i nj ec tio n pr oc ed ur e co nst itu te s c ru el and4

unus ua l punis hm en t. W e ad dr es se d asim ilar § 19 83 c la im in Fu ga te v. D ep ar tm en t of Co rr ec tio ns, 301 F . 3d 1 287. T he pla int if f in F ugate a sse rt ed , am ong o ther challenges to the State of G eorgia's lethal inj ection procedure, that the use of a"c ut- down" pr oc ed

ur e in the abse nc e of

asui ta ble ve in v iol at ed

the Eig ht h a ndFo ur te en th Am en dm en ts . Com pl . forInju nc ti ve Rel ie f an d Dec l. J ., filed Aug. 12, 2002, ¶¶ 24-28, Fugate v. D ep't of C orrs., No. 02-0221 9-CV -CC (N
. D . G a. Aug. 13, 200 2)
. O n a ppe al , w e he ld tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y dis m iss ed the § 19 83 a ct ionto "e nj oinand r es tr ai n th e de fe ndants f ro m e xe cu tin g [Fugate] until th ey

[took] certain m easure[ s] to m inim ize the risk of unnecessary pa in, suf fe ri ng and m

uti la tio n duri ng the e xe cu tio n pr oc es s, " b ec au se the § 19 83
ac tio n c onst itu te d th e "f

unc tio na l e qui va le nt" of

ase co nd h ab ea s pe tit ion
. 301 F. 3d at 12 88. P ur suant t o F uga te , w e co nc lud e that N el son' s § 1 983 cl ai m a lso constitu tes the "functional equiv alent" of a sec ond h abeas petition as it seeks an im m ed ia te stay

to the im posi tio n of

N el son' s de ath se nte nc e. S ee F ugate , 301 F . 3d at 128 8; S piv ey

v. S ta te Bo ar d of

P ar dons and P ar ole s, 279 F . 3d 1 301, 130 3 &
n. 4. W e be lie ve that the ins tant c as e is i ndi sti ngui sha ble f ro m F ugate ; bo th s ough t to m ini m iz e the r isk

of unn ec es sary

pa in d ur ing the e xe cu tio n pr oc es s, and b oth
so ug ht to st ay

th e ex ecu ti on un ti l ap pr op ria te co rrec ti ve m eas ur es were t ak en . Be ca use N el son' s § 1 983 cl ai m w as the "f

unc tio na l e qui va le nt" of

ase co nd5

habe as pe tit ionand b ec au se N el son did not ge t our pe rm iss ionto fi le ase co nd habeas petition prior to filing in th e district court as re quired by 28 U. S. C. §224 4( b) (3 )( A ), the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y dis m iss ed

N el son' s § 1 983 cl ai m

f or la ck of j ur isd ic tio n to e nte rt ai n th e cl ai m . F ugate , 301 F . 3d at 12 88; H ill , 112 F . 3d at 108 9. Mo re ove r, e ve n ha d N el son soug ht o ur pe rm iss ionto fi le ase co nd habe as pe tit ion , the f

ac ts a lle ge d in dic at e that N el son' s a ppl ic at ionw oul d have been denied pursu ant to 28 U.S .C. § 2244 (b)(2) bec ause his cruel and unus ual puni shm en t c la im

ne ith er "r el ie s onane wr

ule of c onst itu tio na l l aw , m ad e re tr oa ct ive to ca se s onc oll at er al r ev ie wby the S upr em e Co urt, that w as pr ev iou sly unavailable," nor has a "f actual predicate for the claim [that] could no t have been dis co ve re d pr ev iou sly

thr oughthe e xe rc ise of

due dil ige nc e. . . [ that] if

pr ove n and vie w ed in lig ht o f the e vid en ce a s aw hol e, w oul d be suf fi ci en t t o e sta

bli sh.
. . that, but f or c onst itu tio na l e rr or , no r ea sona ble f ac tf ind er w oul d have f

ound the ap pli cant g uil ty

of the und er ly ing of

fe nse . " S ee 28 U
. S. C. § 22 44( b) (2 ); F el ke r v. Turpin, 101 F.3d at 97; In re Pr ovenzano, 215 F.3d 1233 , 1235-1236 (11th Cir. 2000 ) (involvin g an application for second habeas petiti on challengin g lethal inj ec tio n a s a dm ini ste re d by the S ta te of

F lor ida a s c ru el and unusu al pun ish m en t and dism issin g it because the claim did no t m eet the re quirem ents of § 2244 (b)(2))
.Whil e the dissent' s distinction of Felker v. Turpin, Hill v. Hopper, a nd possibly

even 4 Gilreath v. State Boa

rd of Par dons & Par oles, 273 F.3d 932 ( 11th Cir. 2001), may be plausible, we be lieve its attempt to disti nguish Fug ate is flaw ed. As noted in our opinion, we do not be lie ve F ug ate is d ist inguis ha ble . F ug ate wa s n o mo re atte mpt ingto a vo id h is s e nte nc e tha

n is Nelson. B oth asserte d that they wer e not cha lleng ing the ir sentenc e. See Compl. for I njunctive Re lie f a nd De c l. J., fi le d Aug . 1 2, 20 02 , at *1 , F ug ate v. De p' t of Cor rs ., No . 0 2- 02 21 9- CV -C C (N.D. G a. Aug . 13, 2002). (f irst sentence ) (" Fug ate ... br ings this ac tion pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challeng ing not his sentenc e of de ath, nor letha l injection as a manne r of inflictingdeath, but the failure of Ge org ia offic ials in chang ing f rom elec trocution to lethal injection to take s u f f i c i e n tm e a s ur e s t o m i n i m i z e th e r i s k o f h i me x p e r i e n c i n ge x tr e m e an d e x c r u c i at i n gp a i n " )
. In both this case and in F ug ate, the a ppellants sug g ested less pa inful alternative way s to impl ement le tha l in je c tio n. In s ho rt , b oth

c a se s so ught t o " e njo in .
.. the de fe nd ants fr om e xec uti nghim until they take c erta in measure s to mini miz e the r isk of unnece ssary pain." Fug ate, 301 F .3d at 1288 (empha sis added). We a lso re

je c t th e dis se nt' s su g g e sti on that N e lso n' s atte mpt

to s tay his e xec uti on

is ir re le va nt t o th e " fu

nc tio na l e qu iva le nt" iss ue . Se e Spi ve y v. State B d. of

Pard on s a

nd Paro le s, 279 F.3d at 1303 (revie wingour dec ision in Gil reath and stating"I n revie wingthe denial of

a motion for preliminary

injunction to st ay

Gilreath's e x ecution, the Court held that ' [w] e look at the kind of re lief Appe llant seeks and c onclude that, howe ver the Appellant desc ribes it, the motion was for ha

beas c orpus re lief.' ") ; See also Spivey , 279 F.3d at 1304 n.4 (distinguishingthe c la im i n Sp ive y

fr om t he c la im i n O hio Ad

ult Paro le Autho ri ty

v. Woo da

rd , 5 23 U. S. 2 72 , 1 18 S. Ct. 1244 (1998), stating " There , no execution date wa s immi nent, and ther e is no indication that Woodard' s claims would nece ssarily imply a cha lleng e to the imposition of a death se ntence .")
. Nelson' s prayer to stay

his ex ecution dire ctly

impedes the implementation of the state sentenc e, an d i s i n d i c at i v e o f

ane f f o rtt o a c c o mp l i s hv i a

§ 1 9 8 3 th atw h i c hc ann o tb e a c c o mp l i s h e d b y a su c c e ssi ve pe tit ion

fo r h a be a s c or pu s. B ra dle y

v. Pr yor , 3 05 F .3 d 1 28 7 ( 11 th C ir . 2 00 2) , is 6 W ith respect to Nelson's state lawclaim , w e agre e w ith the dis trict court that it is b ar re d by P en nhur st S ta te S ch ool & H ospi ta l v. H al de rm an , 465 U . S. 89, 106 , 10 4 S . Ct. 9 00 , 91 1 (1 99 4)
. For the fore goin g reasons the district court's j udgm ent dism issin g Nelson's
co m pla int is af fi rm ed
. N el son' s m oti on t o e nj oinde fe ndants f ro m e xe cu tin g hi m

is de ni ed
. T he j udgm en t of

the dis tr ic t c ourt i s A FF IRME D , and N el son' s m oti on f or 4re ad i l y

d i s t i n gu i s h edfr o mth e i n s t an tca s e. T h atca s e i n v o l v edn o at t emp tt o s t ay Br ad l ey 's execution, and no attempt to interfe re w ith the implementation of the state sente nce. The Appe llant's r equest for oral a rgument is denied. 5 7 st ay of e xe cu ti on is DENIED. 5Th e ma jor ity no te s th at N e lso n f

ile d h is § 19 83 c la im o nly thr e e da y s p ri or to h is 1 e xec uti on . H ow e ve r, the pr oc e dure at is su e he re ha d n e ve r b e fo re be e n im ple me nte d in

Al a bama and prison off

icials had to cr aft a

specia l proce dure to g overn N elson’s execution. It is unclear at what point they

finalized the proce dure a nd notified Nelson of it. Even in lig ht of the cha nce that Nelson see ks redr ess in the cour ts solely as a me ans of de laying the inevitable, the possibility of his only rec ently beingnotified of the pr ocedur e re quires our c aution. 8 W IL SO N , Ci rc uit

Jud ge , dis se nti ng: T he m aj or ity

hol ds tha t N el son’ s E igh th A m en dm en t c la im c ha lle ngi ng the uniq ue m anner of his execution, filed under 42 U. S. C. § 198 3, is the “ functional equiv al en t” of

aha be as pe tit ion , and i s th er ef or e subj ec t t o th e re qui re m en ts gove rn ing se co nd o r suc ce ssi ve ha be as pe tit ion s un de r 28 U
. S. C. § 22 44. I n li ght of the clear

authority indicating that Ne lson’s claim shoul d be construed
ex cl us iv el y

un de r § 1 98 3, I s tro ng ly dis ag ree wi th th e m ajor it y ’s ho ld in g. N el son se ek s on ly

ate m por ar y stay of e xe cu tio n un til c onc er

ns r eg ar din g the m an ne r of

his e xe cu tio n are a ddr es se d. 1 Ac om pla int se ek ing § 19 83 r el ie f in the f orm of ate m por ar y stay of execution is n ot autom atically equivalent to a successive habeas petitio n. Be fore
m aking th e determ ination of w hether such a stay shoul d be consid ered a

habeas petition or a c ivil right s action, the court m ust inq uire into the fundam ental que sti on o f w he the r the pla int if f is a ct ua lly se ek ing to ch al le nge e ith er the f ac t ofA c ourt “ sh a ll e nte rt a in a

n a pp lic atio n f

or a wr it o f h a

be a s c or pu s in be ha lf of a pe rs on in 2 c us tod y purs ua nt t o th e jud g me nt o f a

state c ourt only on the ground that he is in custodyin violation of the Constitution or laws or tre aties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2003) (empha sis added). H ere , Nelson does not make such a c halleng e. 9 his conv iction or the duration of his sentence–the tou chstones o f habeas r elief. If 2 the pla int if

f' s § 1 983 co m

pla int "w oul d ne ce ssari ly

im ply the inv al idi ty

of his
co nv ic ti on or s en te nc e," t he co m pl ai nt m us t b e d is m is se d. He ck v. Hum phrey , 512 U . S. 477 , 487 ( 1994 ). O n th e co ntr ar y , "i f the pla int if

f' s a ct ion
. . . e ve n if
suc ce ssf ul, w ill not

dem onstrate the invalid ity of any outstand ing crim inal j udgm en t a ga ins t the pla int if f, the a ct ionsho uld

be a llo w ed

to pr oc ee d, in the absence of som e other bar to the suit." Id
. I n th is c as e, N el son w as se nte nc ed to death by lethal inje ction, not by

lethal inje ction sub

j ect to any

painful secondary pr oc ed ur e that A la

ba m a state pr iso n of

fi ci al s de em

appr opr ia te . H e thu s ch al le nge s ne ith er

his c onvi ct ionnor

his se nte nc e. R athe r, he r eque sts the oppo rtunity

to enforce his E ighth Am endm ent rights; an op portuni ty that, a s noted by the dis tr ic t c our

t, w oul d be w hol ly

abse nt i f thi s a ct ionw er e de em ed the equi va le nt of a sec on d h ab eas pe ti ti on . Appe lle es a sse rt

that this c as e is c ontro lle d by thi s c ourt’ s de ci sio n in F ugate v. D ep '

t of Co rrs . , 301 F . 3d 1 287 (1 1thCi r. 200 2) ( pe r curi am). I n F ugate , aninm at e soug ht a

stay of e xe cu tio n, a lle gin g th at

the m an ne r in whic h G eo rg iaNeve rtheless, I believe that our dec isions in Fu ga teand its prior re lated ca ses ar e 3 questionable unde r the standa rds def ining ha beas a ctions. A cha lleng e to the manner in which an inmate is executed, in g ener al, is not nece ssarily a cha lleng e to the inmate’ s sentence of death or his c onvic tio n. Th e inm ate ’s e xec uti on wi ll p re suma

bly pr oc e e d, e ith e r i n th e same mann e r o r i n a dif fe re nt m ann e r, pe nd ingsu bs e qu e nt p ro c e e din g s. An ave nu e fo r r e vie w o f E ig hth Amendment cla ims mustrema in available to those f acingdeath at the hands of the state. 10 adm ini ste re d it s le tha l i nj ec tio ns w as c ru el and unusu al und er the E igh th Am endm ent. W e held that the district court lacked jur isdictio n to consi der Fugate’ s claim

because it w as the functional equiv alent of a sec ond h abeas petition , and he had no t previousl y applied to th is court for perm issio n to file such a p et it io n u nd er § 22 44 (b )(3 )(A). Se e F ugate , 301 F . 3d at 12 88. A lth oughthe fa ct s in F ugate are s im il ar t o t ho se in th is cas e, Fugate doe s no t c ontro l the questio n before us. Fugate w as sentenced to death by lethal inje ction un der G eo rg ialaw . B y

se ek ing astay

of e xe cu tio n onthe ba sis of ac ha lle nge to G eo rg ia ’ s m ethod of

a dm ini ste ri ng i ts l etha l i nj ec tio ns, F ugate w as , in ef fe ct , at t emp t i n g t o av o i dh i s s p ec i fi c s en t en ce . Th er ef o re , t h e d ec i s i o n th at Fu g at e’s claim wa s the “ functional equi valent” of a succe ssive habeas petitio n was re as ona ble
. T he sam e is tru e of

our de ci sio ns i n Hill v. Hopper , 112 F . 3d 1 088 3 (1 1thCi r. 199 7) ( pe r curi am) (h old ing that an in m at e' s c onst itu tio na l c ha lle nge to el ec tr oc uti on a s m eans o f ex ec uti on w as the f unc tio na l e qui va le nt o f a se co nd habe as pe tit ion ) an d F

el ke r v . T urpi n , 10 1 F .3d95 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ) (p er cu ria m ). He re, however, Ne lson is not seeking to avoid executio n by lethal inje ction un der11

A la ba m a law . T he “ cu t do w n” pr oc ed ur e that i s to be use d inhis e xe cu tio n is not
w ith in A la

ba m a’ s e xe cu tio n pr oc ed ur e, nor ha s it be enr ev ie w ed

to en sur e that i t pa sse s m ust er und er the E igh th A m en dm en t. N el son m er el y r eque sts that a dif fe re nt, m or e hum an e pr oc ed ur e known a s “pe rc utane ous ce ntr al ve nous cannul at ion ” be use d to c ar ry out his e xe cu tio n, r athe r than th e outm ode d and pa inf ul “ cu t do w n” pr oc ed

ur e. R eg ar dle ss o f w hic h pr oc ed ur e is u se d, N el son w ill be e xe cu te d by

le tha l i nj ec tio n ina cc or danc e w ithhis se nte nc e. H ow ev er , w ith the im ple m en ta tio n of

the “ cu t do w n” pr oc ed

ur e, N el son’ s E igh th A m en dm en t rig ht s m ay

be co m pr om is edin th e p ro ces s. T he dis tr ic t c ourt no te d th at the r uli ngs of the E le ve nthCi rc uit

appe ar to
m ak e a dis tin ct ionbe tw ee n c as es in w hic h ade ath r owinm at e’ s e xe cu tio n is im m ine nt and c as es in w hic h e xe cu tio n is not im m ine nt. I n B radl eyv . Pry or , 305 F. 3d 12 87 (11th Cir. 2002 ), which w as decided within we eks of F ugate , w e he ld that a de ath r owinm at e’ s § 1 983 ac tio n f or pr oduc tio n of

D N Ae vid en ce w as not

a successive habeas petition because it “ neither directly , nor by necessary im plication, attack[ed] the validityof his convictio n and sentence.” Bradley , 305 F. 3d at 12 88. I n hi s c onc ur re nc e, and w ith out

f urthe r explana tio n, Ch ie f Judg e E dm onds on s tr es se d th at the f ac t tha t B ra dle y

did not r eque st a stay of his
ex ecu ti on as p artof h is cla im was a n “ im

po rta nt ” p artof h is de ci si on . Id
. a t 12 9212

(Edm on ds on , C.J., co nc urrin g)
. H ow ev er , I f

ai l t o se e the r el ev an ce of ar eque st f

or astay of e xe cu tio n to the questio n of whether an action is the equiv alent of a habeas petition. I n Gilreath v. State Bd. of Pardo ns & Paroles , 273 F. 3d 93 2 (11th Cir. 2001) (per
curi am), w e he ld tha t a

de ath r owinm at e’ s m oti on f or apr el im inary

inj unc tio n to stay his e xe cu tio n pe ndi ng an a ppe al in a cl em en cy

pr oc ee din g w as e qui va le nt t o a se co nd h ab ea s pe tit ion
. H ow ev er , w e did not hol d th at ev er

ym oti on f

or astay of
ex ec uti on w as tantam ount to a pe tit ionf

or ha be as r el ie f. I n f

ac t, w e state d inthe opin ion th at “ [w ] e look to th e kind of relief [ the inm ate] seeks from the feder al
co ur ts ” in de te rm in in g wh et he r a p et it io ne r se ek s h ab eas rel ie f. Id . at 933. Since the inm at e in G ilr ea th sough t clem ency , or relief from his penalty , it w as clear

that hi s p et it io n fo r a s ta y

of e xe cu ti on was fo r th e p ur po se of a tt ack in g h is sen te nc e. He re, Ne lson’s re quest for a stay has no bearing on h is convictio n or his sentence,
nor w ill it e ve r. I f his stay

is gr an te d, he w ill a t m ost have ali m ite d op portun ity to pur sue his E igh th A m en dm en t c la im s. Wha te ve r the out co m e, N el son w ill be
ex ecu te d. N el son as ks n ot t o be spare d; h e as ks o nly that he be e xe cu te d hu m an el y in
ac co rd an ce w ithhis c onst itu tio na l r igh ts. T he bottom li ne in thi s c as e is tha t the out co m e of

N el son’ s pe tit ionha s no e ff ec t one ith er

his se nte nc e or

his c onvi ct ion ,13

an d th er ef

or e ca nnot pr ope rl y be c onstru ed

und er any c ir cum stanc es a s th e equiv al en t t o asub se que nt h ab ea s pe tit ion
. T he re fo re , pur suant t o He ck v. Hum phrey , Nels on ’s § 1 98 3 a ct io n s ho ul d b e al lo wedto pro ceed . 51 2 U.S. at48 7. I re spe ct fu lly

dis se nt.