F ILED U.S. CO URT OF AP P EALS ELEVENTH CI RCUIT MAY 19, 2011 JO HN LEY CLERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 12 23 8

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :1 1- cv -0 03 76 -WK W EDDIE D. POW ELL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff , JASON ORIC W ILLIAMS, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll In te rv en orPla in ti ff - Ap pe ll an t, vers us KIM THOMAS, In te rim Co m

m is si on er, Alaba m a Dep artm en t o f Co rrec ti on s, in di vi du al ly andinhi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty, ANTHONYPATTERSON, W ard en , Hol m anCo rrec ti on al Faci li ty, in di vi du al ly andinhi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll ees .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma y 19 , 20 11 )Befo re TJ OFLAT, ED MONDSON an d WILSON, Circu itJu dg es .

PER CURI AM: Ja so n Wil li am s i s cu rren tl y on de ath ro w inAlab am a. He is sch edul edto 1 be ex ecu te d a t 6 :0 0 p .m . onThu rs da y , May 19 , 20 11 . In l at e Apr il , th e Alaba m a Dep artm en t o f Co rrec ti on s (“ ADOC”) an no un cedpl an s t o a lt er i ts let ha l i njec ti on pr ot oc ol forW il li am s’s ex ecu ti on . Spe ci fic al ly, itwou ldbe rep la ci ng th e fi rs t drug init s l etha l i njec ti on pro to co l— so di um th io pe nt al —wi th an ot he r an es th et ic —p en to ba rb it al . Thatde ci si onres ul te d fr om a he av il y publ ic iz ed , na ti on wid e sh orta ge of s od iu m th io pe nt al . Alab am a, al on g wi tha nu m be r of othe r st at es , sel ect edpe nt ob arb it al as arep la cem en t t o e ns ur e th atitco ul d c on ti nu e to carry ou t ex ecu ti on s re ga rd le ss of s od iu m th io pe nt al ’s ava il ab il ity . W il li am s fi le d a m ot io n fo r st ay

of e xe cu ti on inth e Alaba m a Supr em e Co urt al le gi ng , in te r a li a , th atth e ADOC’s pro to co l ch an ge wil l re su ltina vi ol at io n o f hi s Ei gh th Am en dm en t ri gh t t o b e fre e fro m cru el an d u nu su al pu ni sh m en t. The Alab am a Supr em e Co urt d en ie d h is reque st . He th enfil eda si mil ar m ot io n i n fe de ral di st ric t co urt, wh ic h the co urt d en ie d. Will ia m s fi le d a n app eal with thi s C ou rt, ag ai n a sk in g fo r a s tay

of e xe cu ti on . After c aref ul rev ie w, we con cl ud e th atth e di st ric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n, an d, ac co rd in gl y , we affi rm . The de tails of Wil liams’s crimes a re r eca pitulated in many

court opinions. See, e .g. , 1 W illiams v. Allen , 598 F.3d 778 ( 11th Cir. 2010). 2I.

W e rev ie w th e d en ia l o f a s tay of e xe cu ti on un de r th e ab us e-o f-d is cret io n st an da rd . Se e Jo nes v. Al le n , 48 5 F .3d63 5, 6 39 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). A st ay of ex ecu ti on is equi tabl e rel ie f. W il li ams v. All en , 49 6 F .3d12 10 , 12 12 –1 3 (1 1t h C ir. 20 07 ). Thi s C ourt m ay

gra nta st ay

of e xe cu ti on on ly if th e m ov in g p arty sh ows th at : (1 ) he ha s a s ub st an ti al li ke li ho odof s uc ces s o n the m eri ts ; (2 ) he wil l s uf fer irr ep arab le in

jury unl es s the in

jun ct io n i ss ue s; (3) th e st ay wou ldno t s ub st an ti al ly ha rm th e o th er l it ig an t; an d (4 ) if is su ed , th e in

jun ct io n wo ul d n otbe adve rs e to th e p ub li c in te res t. Se e In re Ho llad ay , 33 1 F .3d11 69 , 11 76 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). II.

“ Tha t the Eig ht h Am en dm en t p ro te ct s ag ai ns t fu tu re h arm to in m at es is no t a n ov el pro po si ti on .” Hell in g v . McKi nn ey , 50 9 U.S. 2 5, 3 3, 1 13 S. Ct. 2 47 5 (1 99 3) . A ty

pi cal Eig ht h Am en dm en t ch al le ng e—a ll eg in g tha t the Sta te wil l 2 in fli ctcru el or u nu su al pu ni sh m en t—requi res th e d efen da ntto de m on st rat e th at (1 ) th e St at e is be in g d el ib erat el y in di ffer en t (2 ) to a co nd it io n tha t p os es a subs tant ia l ri skof s eri ou s h arm to hi m . Farmer

v. Bren na n , 51 1 U.S. 8 25 , 82 8, 11 4 S . Ct. 1 97 0 (1 99 4) . As a p lu ral ity of the Supr em e Co urt s umm ari zed , “ to pr ev ai l o n s uc h acla im

th ere m us t b e a ‘subs tant ia l ri skof s eri ou s h arm ,’ an The Eighth Amendment is applicable to the states through the Four teenth Amendme nt’s 2 Due Proc ess Clause. Robinson v. Californi a , 370 U.S. 660, 666, 82 S. C t. 1417 (1962). 3‘objec ti ve ly int ol erab le ris k o f ha rm ’ th atpre ve nt s p ris on off ic ia ls fro m

pl ead in g th atth ey were ‘subjec ti ve ly bla m el es s fo r pu rp os es of the Eig ht h Am en dm en t.’” Baz e v. Rees , 55 3 U.S. 3 5, 5 0, 1 28 S. Ct. 1 52 0 (2 00 8) (pl ur al ity op in io n) (qu ot in g Farmer , 51 1 U.S. at84 2, 8 46 & 8 47 n.9 ). There fo re, i n o rd er t o o bt ai n re li ef, 3 W il li am s m

us t d em on st rat e th atth ere i s a s ub st an ti al li ke li ho odhe cansat is fy th os e requi rem en ts . W e co nc lu de he can no t. Ult im at el y , th e m os t re le va ntev id en ce p res en te d c on si st edof ( 1) anexpe rt rep ort, i ntro du cedby W il li am s, ch al le ng in g the us e o f pe nt ob arb it al inOkl ah om a ex ecu ti on s, an d (2 ) anex pe rt r ep ort, s ub m it te d b y th e St at e, as se rti ng th atth e u se of pe nt ob arb it al inth e Alaba m a le th al in jecti on pro to co l p res en ts “ anex ceed in gl y sm al l ri skth ata co nd em

ne d i nm at e . . . woul d e xp eri en ce an y pa in or s uf

feri ng as so ci at edwith the adm in is tra ti on of l etha l d os es of p an cu ro ni um bro m id e an d po ta ss iu m

ch lo rid e.” The fed eral co urts th atco ns id eredOkl ah om a’s us e o f pe nt ob arb it al ul ti m at el y

reject edth e ex pe rt r ep ort tha t Will ia m s n ow o ffer s. Se e Pav at t v. Jo nes , 62 7 F .3d13 36 , 13 40 (10 th Cir . 20 10 ). The ev id en ce p res en t d oe s no t d em on st rat e th atth e ADOC’s us e o f pe nt ob arb it al crea te s s ub st an ti al ris k o f se rio us ha rm

to W il li am s. We are unabl e to de te rm in e th atth e d is tri ctco urt

This Court has never

eng ag ed in extended ana ly sis to determine the e x act holdingof the 3 extraordinarily

fra cture d Baze Court. We cite it here f or its summary

of unquestionable, controllingprec edent a

nd decline to a ddress its full rea ch. 4ab us edit s d is cret io n b y cred it in g the ex pe rt r ep ort s ub m it te d b y th e St at e an d co nc lu di ng th atW il li am s h as no t d em on st rat eda subs tant ia l l ik el ih oo d o f su cces s on th e m eri ts of t hi s Ei gh th Am en dm en t cl ai m . III. Inatt em pt in g t o a vo idth e le ga l p ris m typic al ly use d fo r an al yzi ng si m il ar Eig ht h Am en dm en t cl ai m s, se e su pr a , W il li am s as se rts th athe ha s a b ro adEig ht h Am en dm en t ri gh t t o kno w th e d et ai ls of h is ex ecu ti on inord er t o e ns ur e p ro pe r ov ers ig htan d a vo idun cert ai nt y th atun ne ces sa ril y

crea te s an xi ety , whi chgre at ly ex acerba te s h is sen te nc e. W il li am s fo cu se s o n Nel so n v . Camp be ll , 54 1 U.S. 6 37 , 12 4 S . Ct. 2 11 7 (2 00 4) , In re Me dl ey , 13 4 U.S. 1 60 , 10 S. Ct. 3 84 (18 90 ), an d Gre gg v. Geor gi a , 42 8 U.S. 1 53 , 96 S. Ct. 2 90 9 (1 97 6) , andhe arg ue s tha t the se cas es est ab li sh anEig ht h Am en dm en t ri gh t t o kno w th e d et ai ls su rro un di ng hi s ex ecu ti on . In Nel so n , th e ADOC al te redit s l etha l i njec ti on pro to co l— ap pr ox im at el y on e weekbe fo re d efen dant ’s exe cu ti on—t o a ll ow fo r a “ cut-d own ” p ro cedur e. 54 1 U.S. at64 0– 41 . This in vo lv edm ak in g atwo -in chin ci si on inth e d efen da nt ’s arm or l eg an d c athe te riz in g ave in on e h ou r be fo re the ex ecu ti on with o nl y lo cal an es th et ic . Id . at 6 41 . The s ta te pro po se d the “ cu t d own ” p ro cedur e b ecau se st an da rdtec hn ique s fo r ga in in g i ntrav en ou s ac ces s wer e una va il ab le be cau se of

5th e d efen da nt ’s pas t dru g u se . Id . at 6 40 . The h ol di ng of Nel so n , ho wev er, i s

“ ex tre m el y

li m it ed .” Id . at 6 49 . The Co urt s im pl y co nc lu de d tha t 4 2 U.S.C. § 1 98 3 was “ anap pr op ria te ve hi cl e fo r pe ti ti on er’s Eig ht h Am en dm en t cl ai m se ek in g atem

po rary stay ” b as edon alt eredex ecu ti on pro to co ls th atco ul d v io la te a de fen da nt ’s civ il rig ht s. Id . at 6 39 . It rem an de d the cas e fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs to de te rm in e th e m eri ts of t he de fen da nt ’s Eig ht h Am en dm en t cl ai m . Id . at 6 51 . In Medle y , th e Co urt, an al yzi ng an ex p os t f ac to cl ai m , con cl ud edth ata ne w Co lo rad o s ta tu te im

po se d agre at er p en al ty than i ts pre de ces so r be cau se th e n ew law pro hi bi te d the ward enfro m di sc lo si ng th e ex ecu ti on da te to th e d efen da nt , whi le th e p rev io us st atut e requi reda co urt t o i nf orm th e d efen da ntof h is ex ecu ti on da te . 13 4 U.S. at17 0– 72 . Ulti m at el y , th e Co urt co nc lu de d tha t the “ se crec y ” su rro un di ng anex ecu ti on un de r th e n ew st atut e “ m us t b e acc om

pa ni edby an imm en se m en ta l an xi ety

am ou nt in g t o agre atin crea se of the off en de r’s pu ni sh m en t,” a nd , th eref

or e, th e st atut e in qu es ti on vi ol at edth e Co ns ti tu ti on ’s ex po st fa ct o claus e. Id . at 1 72 . Se e a ls o Gre gg , 42 8 U.S. at17 3 (p ro hi bi ti ng th e

“un ne ces sa ry

an d wan to n i nf

li ct io n o f pa in ”). W e d ecl in e to readth es e cas es as e st ab li sh in g acat eg or ic al rul e en ti tl in g de fen da nt s t o alet ha l i njec ti on pro to co l tha t i s l eg is la ti ve ly enact edan d s ub jecte d to ex te ns iv e li ti ga ti on . After a n in ca mera rev ie w, th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d tha t the

6St at e’s rep res en tati on s re ga rd in g the am en de d e xe cu ti on pro to co l wer e acc ur at e

an d a de qu at el y

in fo rm edW il li am s o f th e p ro ces s tha t wo ul d b e u se d. Th e rep la cem en t o f so di um

th io pe nt al with p en to ba rb it al do es no t co ns ti tu te a si gn ifi can t al te rat io n i n the ADOC’ s l etha l i njec ti on pro to co l, an d we c on cl ud e th atsu chanam en dm en t d oe s n otvi ol at e th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t u nd er the cas es ci te d b y W il li am s. IV. Ult im at el y , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d en y in g W il li am s’s m ot io n t o s tay hi s ex ecu ti on . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm th e d eci si on of th e d is tri ctco urt. AFFIRMED.

7