FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT Dec ember

13 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [ P U B L I S H ] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1640 8

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 06-01083 -CV -H LA -MCR ANGEL N IEVES DIAZ, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us JAM ES MCDONOUGH Se cr et ar y , F lor ida D ep ar tm en t of Co rr ec tio ns, and CHARLES J. CR IST, JR ., Fl or id a Att orne y

Gene ral , Defen da nt s- App el le es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (D ec em be r 13, 200 6) Be fo re T JO FL A T , MA RC U S an d P RY O R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

Pe tit ion er A nge l N ie ve s D ia z, aF lor ida pr iso ne r unde r se nte nc e of de ath, m oves this Court for a stay of execution and appeals the denial bythe district court of his request for a pre lim inary injunction. D iaz, who is scheduled to be executed by le tha l i nj ec tio n onD ec em be r 13, 200 6, f

ile d pr o se ac om

pla int und er se ct ion 1983 in the Mi ddl e D istri ct of F lor ida and a lle ge d th at

the le tha l i nj ec tio n pr oto co l use d by the F lor ida

D ep ar tm en t of Co rr ec tio ns w ill c au se him unn ec es sary

pa in an d su bj ec t hi m to cr ue l and unusu al pun ish m en t i n vi olatio n of the E igh th and Fourteenth Am endm ents to the United States Constitut ion. T he district court de ni edDiaz ’s reque stfora pr el im in ary in jun ct io n. We den y

hi s p et it io n. T he ba ck gr ound

of the und er ly ing c as e that l ed to D ia z’ s de ath se nte nc e is d es cr i b edi nth e d ec i s i o no f t h e F l o ri d a S up re m e C o u rtth ataf fi rmedDi az ’s co nvi ct ionand d eath s en te nc e on d ir ec t a ppe al . D ia z v. S tate , 513 S o. 2d 1 045, 1046 ( Fl a. 198 7) . I n th e suc ce ed ing y ears , D ia z soug ht i n vari ous unsu cc es sf ul ap pe al s and c oll at er al pr oc ee din gs, in both st at e an d f ed er al c ourt, to have his convictio n and death sentence overturned. O n Dec em ber 11, 2006, less than three day s be fo re his sc he dul ed e xe cu tio n, D ia z fi le d pr o se his c om pla int und er se ct ion 1983 to challenge the three-drug lethal inje ction m ethod us ed by Florida to carr

y out e xe cu tio ns o n th e gr ound that i t c onst itute d c ru el and unusu al pun ish m en t i n vio latio n of

the E igh th and F ourte en th A m en dm en ts t o th e Co nst itutio n of the3

U nit ed S tate s. D ia z re que ste d “ a pr el im inary te m por ar y inj unc tio n pr ohi bit ing his ex ec uti on, ape rm an en t i nj unc tio n barr ing the D ef en dants f ro m e xe cu tin g hi m unde r the c ur

re nt p ro toc ol, an e vid en tiary he ar ing and the a

ppoi ntm en t of co unse l. ” T he dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d th e m oti on f or apr el im inary

inj unc tio n be ca use the dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed that D ia z fa ile d to e sta

bli sh a “ sig nif ic an t poss ibi lity

of suc ce ss o n th e m er its ” an d ba se d onthe str ong equit ab le pr es um pt io n a ga in stgra nt in g alas t m in ut e st ay . Diaz now m oves this Court for a stay of execution. A lthou gh Diaz de sc ri be s hi s m oti on a s on e fo r a stay of e xe cu tio n, it

is ap pare nt tha t he pe tit ion s fo r anor de r te m

por ar ily e nj oin ing the S tate f

ro m c ar ry ing out his e xe cu tio n un til hi s ap pe al of t he de ni al of h is m ot io n fo r a p rel im in ary in jun ct io n c an be de ci de d.

“ [A ] stay of e xe cu tio 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.” H ill v. McD onou gh, 126 S. C t. 2096, 2104 (200 6). “ A c ourt co nsi de ri ng a

stay m ust a lso appl y

‘ a str ong equit ab le pr es um pti on a ga ins t the gr an t of astay w he re ac la im

c oul d have be enbr ough t at su chati m e as to al low co nsi de ratio n of

the m er its w ith out

r equir ing e ntr

y of astay . ’ ” H ill v. Mc D onou gh, 126 S . Ct . a t 21 04 ( ci tatio n om itt ed ). “ [W ] e co nsi de r [D ia z’ s] m oti on f or inj unc tiv e re lie f . . . w iththe c le ar ind ic at ionf

ro m the S upr em e Co urt .4

. . that w e m ay

de ny [ D ia z’ s] r eque st i f the e qui tie s de m an d th at r es ult . ” H ill v. McDo no ug h, 4 64 F.3d12 56 , 12 58 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Be ca use D ia z re que sts apr el im inary inj unc tio n so le ly

f or the pur pose of al low ing ti m e to p ur sue his appe al , the inj unc tio n so ught is “ one gr ound ed

in the au tho ri ty of the f ed er al c ourts unde r the A ll Wri ts A ct , 28 U . S. C. § 16 51( a) . ” I d. T he A ll Wri ts A ct

state s, “ 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 juri sd ic ti on s an d a gr eeab le to th e u sa ge s an d p rin ci pl es of l aw.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (a ). T o ob ta in an in

j unc tio n un de r the A ll Wri ts A ct , the inj unc tio n “ m ust sim ply poi nt t o so m e ongo ing pr oc ee din g, or som e pa st o rd er

or j udgm en t, the integrity of w hich is being threatened by som eone else’ s action or behavior.” K lay v. United Healthgroup, Inc. , 376 F. 3d 10 92, 1100 (11t h Cir. 2004 ). D iaz has filed a n ot ic e o f ap pe al of t he de ni al of h is m ot io n fo r a p rel im in ary in jun ct io n, an d we have j urisdictio n over that appeal. See 28 U. S. C. § 129 2(a)( 1). W e could grant an in jun ct io n t o p ro te ctou r juri sd ic ti on to he ar Di az’s ap pe al . Be ca use w e fi nd tha t the e qui tie s do not sup port D ia z’ s r eque st, w e de cl ine to g rant an in

j unc tio n. D ia z fi le d hi s se ct ion198 3 c om pla int and r eque st f

or inj unc tiv e re lie f le ss than th re e day s be fo re his sc he dul ed e xe cu tio n and s hortly after the Florida Suprem e Court denied his appli cation for post-convictio n relief5

on , am on g o th er g ro un ds , hi s ch al le ng e to th e Fl or id a le th al in jecti on pro to co l. See Diaz v. S tate, -- So. 2d -- , 2006 W L 3530471 (Fla. De c. 8, 2006). D iaz w as ei the r aw ar e or

sho uld have be enaw ar e of

the gr ound s f

or his se ct ion198 3 c la im m uc h e ar lie r than th e da te on whic h he f ile d hi s c om

pla int . I n f

ac t, D ia z kne wor shou ld h av e known of

the gr ound s f

or his c la im lon g be fo re he f

ile d hi s c om

pla int because the Florida Suprem e Court considered a challenge to the Florida lethal inj ec tio n pr oto co ls o n si m ilar gr ound s a s e ar ly a s 20 00. S ee S im s v. S tate , 754 S o. 2d 6 57, 666 -6 8 ( Fl a. 2000 ). I n th e lig ht o f thi s hi sto ry , D ia z cannot c la im that he co uld not have f ile d hi s f ed er al c om

pla int a t an e ar lie r da te that w oul d have al low ed the c ourts t o a ddr es s th e co m pla int on the m er its w ith out

the ne ce ssi ty

of a st ay . D ia z’ s m oti on f

or astay of e xe cu tio n is DENIE D.