FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT September 15 , 2006 THOMAS 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. 06- 1492 7

____ ____ ____ _ D. C. Docket N o. 06-00032 -CV -SP M CLARENCE E. HILL, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us JAM ES MCDONOUGH, CHARLES CRI ST, D ef en dants -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ __ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ _ (S ep te m be r 15, 200 6) Be fo re T JO FL A T , H U L L and P RY O R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

Pet it io ne r Cl aren ce E. Hil l, cu rren tl y an in m at e o n F lo rid a’s de at h ro w, m ove s th is c ourt f

or astay of e xe cutio n and e xpe dit ed appe al of the dis m iss al of his pe ndi ng a ct ionpur suant t o 42 U . S. C. § 19 83, in w hic h he a lle ge s vi olatio ns an d th re at en ed

vio latio ns o f his r igh ts unde r the E igh th and F ourte en th A m en dm en ts t o th e U . S. Co nst itutio n. W e fi nd tha t H ill doe s no t m ee t the standard f or inj unc tiv e re lie f, and a cc or din gly w e de ny his pe tit ion . The basic f

acts of the underly ing case resulting in Hill’ s death sentence are se t f orth i n th e de ci sio n of

the F lor ida

S upr em e Co urt a ff

irm ing H ill ’ s c onvi ct ion and death sentence on direct appeal. Hill v. State, 515 So. 2d 176 , 177 (Fla. 1987 ). O ve r the c our se of m or e than 20 y ears , H ill ha s purs ue d vari ous unsu cc es sf

ul a ppe al s and c oll at er al pr oc ee din gs s ee kin g to have his c onvi ct ion an d de ath se nte nc e ove rt

ur ne d. O n January

24, 200 6, f

our day s be fo re his sc he dul ed e xe cutio n, H ill f

ile d ac ivi l c om

pla int und er 42 U . S. C. § 19 83. I n hi s com plaint, Hill alleged that the particular three-dr ug lethal injection m ethod us ed by Florida to carr

y out execution s constit uted cruel and unusu al punish m ent in that the adm inistration of the first drug m ight in sufficiently render the c ondemned pr iso ne r unc onsc iou s. T hus, ac onde m ne d pr iso ne r m igh t su ff

er se ve re pa in ca use d by the a dm ini str at ionof

the se co nd and thir d dr

ugs in the e xe cutio n se ri es .3

T h e d ay a f

t e r H i l l f i l e dh i s c o mp l a i n t , th e d i s tr i c tc o u rtd i s mi s s e dh i s c l a i ms fo r la ck of j ur isd ic tio n, hol din g th at H ill ’ s a ct ionw as e ff

ec tiv el y asuc ce ssi ve pe tit ionf or aw ri t of ha be as c or pus fi le d w ith out

le av e an d, thu s, r ana fo ul o f 28 U. S. C. § 224 4(b). Hill v. Crosby , N o. 4:06-CV- 032-SPM, 2006 W L 167585, at * 2

– * 3 (N .D. Fl a. J an . 2 1 , 2 0 0 6 ). On ap p ea l , t h i s co u rtaf fi rmed , d en yin g Hi l l ’s ap pli catio n f

or astay . H ill v. Cr osby , 437 F . 3d 1 084, 108 5 ( 11th C ir . 200 6) . T he Suprem e Court stay ed the execution, granted cer tiorari and rever sed, holding that H ill ’ s c la im

c oul d pr ope rl y

be br ough t a s a§ 19 83 a ct ionw he re it c ha lle nge d on ly the part ic ular le tha l i nj ec tio n pr oto co l be ing use d by the state , not

the va lid ity

of le tha l i nj ec tio n se nte nc es ge ne ra lly . H ill v. Mc D onou gh, 546 U . S. - -- , 126 S . Ct . 1189 , 119 0, 163 L . E d. 2d 1 144 (2 006) ( m em . ); 547 U . S. - -- , 126 S . Ct . 209 6, 2102 , 165 L . E d. 2d 4 4 ( 2006 ). O n r em an d, w e furthe r re m an de d th e ca se to the district court for consideration on the m erits. Hill v. McD onou gh, -- - F. 3d ---, 2006 W L 2472727 , at *1 (11th Cir. Aug. 29, 2006). Ther eafte r, in the course of one day – Septem

ber 1, 2006 – Hill filed an am en de d c om

pla int and r eque st f

or apr el im inary

inj unc tio n, the S tate f

ile d a re spon se and m oti on t o di sm iss , and the dis tr ic t c ourt i ssu ed an or de r de ny ing the inj unc tio n and d ism iss ing the c om pla int . O n S ep te m

be r 5, 200 6, H ill m ove d f or reco ns id erat io n, wh ic h m ot io n was de ni edby the di st ric t co ur t o n S ep te m be r 11 .Al tho ugh H ill g e ne ra lly c ha ra c te ri zes his mot ion

a s o ne fo r a

“ sta y of e xec uti on ,” it i s 1 appar ent that he pe titions this court for a preliminary

injunction, not a stay

of the district cour

t’s order . The a ction of the district cour t leaves nothingfor this court to stay , as the dismissal of the complaint and denia l of rec onsideration leave no fur ther a ction to be taken by the district court. Instead, we treat Hill’s moti on as a r equest for an orde r tempora

rily enjoining the State from car rying out Hill’s execution until his appeal in this case c an be de cided. 4 Now , H ill asks th is court to stay his im pendin g execution to allow f or an expedited ap pe al . 1 At the outset, w e note that we do no t here r eview the district court’ s order de ny ing H ill ’ s r eque st f

or inj unc tiv e re lie f an d di sm iss ing his c om pla int . B y

his cu rren t m ot io n, Hi ll ask s o nl y th atwe de la y

th e ex ecu ti on an d e xp ed it e h is ap pe al . W er e w e to g rant the r el ie f that H ill se ek s, w e w oul d on ly r ea char ev ie wof

the district court’ s decision after re ceiving the parties’ argum ents via an accele rated br ie fi ng s ch ed

ule . W ithH ill ’ s e xe cutio n sc he dul ed to be c ar ri ed out w ith in a m atter of day s from

our rece ipt of the inst ant m otion , w e decline to engage in that pr otr ac te d, and u lti m at el y f uti le , se que nc e of

e ve nts . Instead, w e dispos e of H ill’ s m otion by deny ing hi s request for an inj unc tio n ba se d up on o ur ind ep en de nt ana ly sis of

the e qui tie s. I n it s de ci sio n re m an din g H ill ’ s a ct ionto thi s c ourt, the S upr em e Co urt no te d th at it did not r ule on whe the r a co nde m

ne d § 1 983 pla int if

f ch al le ngi ng the m ethod of e xe cutio n m ight b e eligible for a stay of execution to allow him to pursue his suit, but that

“ fe de ra l c ourts c anand s houl d pr ote ct S tate s f ro m dil at or y or spe cu lativ e sui ts” in5

recognition of the “ im

portant interest in the tim ely enforce m ent of a sentence. ” Hill v. McD onou gh, 547 U. S. at -- -, 126 S. Ct. at 2104. T he Court further noted that “ a stay

of e xe cutio n is an e qui ta

ble r em edy . I t i s no t ava ila ble a s am atte r of ri ght , and e qui ty

m ust be se nsi tiv e to the S tate ’ s stro ng i nte re st i n e nf or ci ng i ts crim inal judgm ents.” I d. T hus, we consider Hill’ s m otion for inj unctive relief an ew, bu t wi th th e cl ear i nd ic at io n fr om th e Supr em e Co ur t i n t hi s ca se th atwe m ay de ny H ill ’ s r eque st i f the e qui tie s de m an d th at r es ult . A s w ithany

a ppl ic at ionf

or inj unc tiv e re lie f, our

ana ly sis tur

ns i n part on the ty pe of inj unc tio n be ing sou ght . H ill ’ s r eque st f or apr el im inary

inj unc tio n is not pr ed ic at ed

on any ind ep en de nt c au se of

a ct ion ; i nst ea d, he r eque sts the inj unc tio n so le ly

f or the pur pose of a llo w ing ti m e to p ur sue his appe al . A s su ch , the inj unc tio n so ught

is not a“ tr ad iti ona l” inj unc tio n, but ins te ad one gr ound ed

in the authorityof the feder al courts under the All Writs Ac t, 28 U .S .C. § 1651 (a), w hic h st at es , “ T he S upr em e Co urt and a ll co urts e sta bli she d by

A ct of Co ngr es s m ay iss ue a ll w ri ts n ec es sary

or appr opr iate in ai d of

the ir r es pe ct ive j ur isd ic tio ns and agreeable to the usages and principles of law. ” Se e K lay v. United He althgroup , I nc., 376 F.3d 1092 , 1099–11 00 (11th Cir. 2004 ) (e xplaini ng that

“ [t ] he A ct doe s no t c re at e any

sub stanti ve f

ed er al j ur isd ic tio n” and tha t the A ct “ is a co dif ic at ionof the f ed er al c ourts’ tr ad iti ona l, inh er en t po w er to pr ote ct

theBe cause we a lrea dy have subje ct matter jurisdiction over Hill’s appea l of the dismissal 2 of his § 1983 action, this case is entirely differ ent from In re: Clare nce E dwar d Hill, 437 F.3d 1080, 1083 (11th Cir. 2006), wher e our jurisdiction ce ased onc e we denied Hill’s application un de r 2 8 U .S. C. § 22 44 (b )( 3) (A ) t o f ile a su c c e ssi ve pe tit ion

fo r a wr it o f h a

be a s c or pu s. 6 j ur isd ic tio n th ey

a lr ea dy have , de ri ve d f

ro m som e oth er

sourc e” ). A n in

j unc tio n u n d e r th e A l l Wr i t s A c t“mu s ts i mp l y p o i n tt o s o me o n g o i n g p r o c e e d i n g , o r s o me pa st o rd er

or j udgm en t, the int eg ri ty

of w hic h is be ing thr eate ne d by som eo ne el se ’ s a ct ionor

be havio r. ” I d. ( not ing “ a co urt’ s tr ad iti ona l po w er to pr ote ct

it s j ur isd ic tio n” ). S uc h is c le ar ly the c as e he re . H ill ha s no tic ed his appe al of

the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s di sm iss al of his § 19 83 c om

pla int , and w e cl earl y

have j ur isd ic tio n o v e r th a tap p e a l . We r e w e t o g r an tap r e l i mi n ary i n j u n c t i o ni no r d e r

t o a l l o wt i me to h ear H ill ’ s a

ppe al , w e w oul d be doi ng s o to pr ote ct our appe llate j ur isd ic tio n fr om the im pe ndi ng a ct

of the S tate of

F lor ida to ex ec ute H ill . 2 W e fi nd, how ev er , that the e qui tie s do not sup port H ill ’ s r eque st. S im ply put , H ill w as the arc hit ec t of the ve ry tr ap f ro m w hic h he nowse ek s r el ie f. A t the outset, Hill filed his § 1983 com plaint four day s before his previouslyscheduled execution date of January 24, 2006, and j ust after the F lorida Suprem e Court re j ec te d hi s a

ppl ic at ionf

or pos t- co nvi ct ionr el ie f on, a m ong oth er gr ound s, his ch al le nge to the F lor ida

le tha l i nj ec tio n pr oto co l. S ee H ill v. S tate , 921 S o. 2d 579, 582 –83 (F la . 200 6) . H ill ’ s a sse rt ionof e sse nti al ly

the sam e le tha l i nj ec tio nT h e F l o ri d a S u p re m e C o urtre l i edo nS i m s i nre j ec t i n g Hi l l ’s l et h al i n

j ec t i o nch al l en ge 3 duringpost-conviction proc eeding s. Hill v. S tate, 921 So. 2d at 582–83. 7 ch al le nge in the F lor ida

c ourts r ev ea ls tha t he w as aw ar e of the gr ound s f

or the cl ai m m uc h e ar lie r than th e da te on whic h he a ct ua lly f ile d hi s § 1 983 ac tio n in fe de ra l di str ic t c ourt. B ut w e ne ed not r el y on tha t i nf

er en ce a lon e to d et er

m ine that H ill unr ea sona

bly de lay ed in fi lin g hi s f

ed er al c om

pla int . T he F lor ida Su pr em e Co urt c onsi de re d ac ha lle nge to the F lor ida le tha l i nj ec tio n pr oto co ls o n sim ilar grounds as early

as 2000. Sim s v. State , 754 So. 2d 65 7, 666–68 (Fla. 2000 ). A lthou gh it is u nclear f rom the procedural history

whether Hill addressed 3 the S im s pr ec ed en t i n hi s po st- co nvi ct ionpr oc ee din gs a ft er 200 0, the f

ac t r em ai ns that, during the pendency of his various collateral challenges, F lorida had co nsi de re d th e sam e ty

pe of c la im upo n whic h H ill nowse ek s r el ie f. I n li ght of this cont ext, H ill cannot claim that it was im

poss ible for him

to initiate his feder al suit anyear lier. Furthe r, w ithr eg ar d to m or e re ce nt p ro ce dur al his tor y , H ill ha s a ga in dem onstrated his in tent to delay proceedings in order to necessitate a stay . Af ter the dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d hi s r eque st f or inj unc tiv e re lie f an d di sm iss ed his co m pla int , H ill m ove d f

or r ec onsi de ratio n and, a ga in, f or astay of e xe cutio n. T he d i s tri ctco u rtd en i edh i s m o t i o n s o nSe p t emb er1 1 , 2 0 0 6 , n o t i n g th at“ Hi l l ’s8

em oti ona lly -l ad enarg um en ts r ai se no n ewe vid en ce . . . . [ I] t a ppe ar s th at

H ill is en ga gin g indil at or

y ta ct ic s to de lay

ade ath se nte nc e. ” O rd er D eny ing Mo tio n f

or Rec on si de rat io n a ndMo ti on forSta y at 2 –3 , Hil l v . McDo no ug h, No . 4: 06 -CV032- SP M (N . D . F la . S ep t. 11, 200 6) . B y m ovi ng f or r ec onsi de ratio n, H ill onl y f u rth e r d e l aye dth i s c o u rt ’s r e c e i p to f h i s c a s e o nap p e a l , b r i n g i n g u s wi th i nd ays of his sc he dul ed

e xe cutio n be fo re he f

ile d th e ins tant m oti on f

or astay and expe dit ed appe al . In light of Hill’ s actions in th is case, which can onlybe described as dilatory , w e j oin ou r sister cir cuits in declini ng to allo w f urther litigation of a § 1983 c as e fi le d e sse nti al ly on the e ve of

e xe cutio n. S ee Whit e v. Joh nson , 429 F. 3d 5 72, 573 –74 (5 th C ir . 200 5) ( hol din g th at e ve n if the c onde m

ne d in m at e’ s § 1983 a ct ionw as c ogni za

ble , “ ‘ he is not

e nti tle d to the e qui ta

ble r el ie f he se ek s’ due to his dil at or

y f ili ng” ( ci tatio ns o m itt ed )) ; H ar ri s v. Joh nson , 376 F . 3d 4 14, 417– 18 ( 5thCi r. 200 4) ( co nde m ne d in m at e w ho f

ile d § 1 983 ac tio n te n w ee ks be fo re his sc he dul ed

e xe cutio n “ le av es li ttl e doub t tha t the r ea l purp ose be hin d hi s cl ai m is to s ee k ade lay

of his e xe cutio n, not

m er el y to ef fe ct an a lte ratio n of

the m anne r in whic h it

is carr ie d ou t” ); se e ge ne ra lly H ic ks v . T af

t, 431 F . 3d 9 16 ( 6th Ci r. 200 5) ; C oope r v. Ri m m er , 379 F . 3d 1 029 (9 th C ir . 200 4) . T his hol din g is consist ent with the Suprem e Court’ s instructio n in its rem and of Hill’ s case that9

“ [a ] c ourt c onsi de ri ng a

stay m ust a lso appl y

‘ a str ong equit ab le pr es um pti on against the grant of a stay wher e a c laim

could have been broug ht at such tim e as to a llo wc onsi de ratio n of the m er its w ith out

r equir ing e ntr

y of astay . ’ ” H ill v. McD onou gh, 547 U. S. at -- -, 126 S. Ct. at 2104 (citation o m itted). A cc or din gly , H ill ’ s m oti on f or astay of e xe cutio n and e xpe dit ed appe al is DENIED.