FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT May 20, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 15680

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 7 - 0 2 5 3 4 - CV - CC S A M U E L D A V I D C R O W E , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s J A M E S E . D O N A L D , in h is o f f ic ia l capaci ty a s C om m i ss i on erof the G e o r g iaD e p a rtm e n t o f

C o rr e c tio n s , H IL T O N H A L L , i n h i s o ffi ci al cap aci ty a s W a r de n, G e or gi aD i a gnos t i c a nd C la s s if ic a tio n P r is o n , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( M a y20, 2008) B efo re B IR C H , B A R K E T T an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es.2

P R Y O R , C i rc ui tJudg e: S a m ue l D a vi d C r ow e ha s m ove d f oras t a yof

hi s e xe c ut i on by the S t a t e of G e or gi a , w hi c h i s s c he dul e d t o oc c uron M ay22, 2008, a t7: 00 p. m . , pe ndi ng our re vi ew of the sua s po nt e di sm i ss al of C row e’ s c om pl ai ntthatthe m etho d for l ethal in jectio n em p lo ye d b y G eo rg ia is cru el an d u n u su al p u n ish m en t. B ec au se C ro w e’s com pl ai nti s barre d b y the st atut e of l i m i t at i on s and the equi t i es do no tfa vo r ast ay o f e x e c u tio n , w e d e n y h is m o tio n . C row e w as se nt ence d t o d ea th o n N ov em ber 18, 19 89 , af t erhe pl ea ded gui l ty t o am ur de rc om m i tt e d on M a r c h 2, 1988. W e ha ve pr e vi ous l yde s c r i be d the det ai l s of the m urder, C row e’ s c on vi ct i on , and the l i t i gat i on thatfol l ow ed. S ee Cr o w e v . H a l l , 4 9 0 F. 3 d 8 4 0 , 8 4 3

– 4 4 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) . I n 1 9 9 5 , th e Su p r e me C ourtof G e or gi aa f

f i rm e d C r ow e ’ s c onvi c t i on a nd s e nt e nc e , C r ow e v. S t a t e , 265 G a. 58 2, 45 8 S . E . 2d 79 9 (19 95 ), and i n 1 99 6 the S up re m e C ou rtof the U ni t ed S t a t e s de ni e d hi s pe t i t i on f oraw r i tof

c e rt i or a r i , C r ow e v. G e or gi a , 516 U . S . 1148, 11 6 S . C t . 10 21 (199 6). I n 2002, C r ow e f

i l e d ape t i t i on f

oraw r i tof

habe a s c orpus i n the S upe r i or C o u rt o f B u tts C o u n ty , G e o r g ia , th a t c h a lle n g e d , a s c ru e l a n d u n u s u a l p u n is h m e n t, the m e thod of

l e tha l i nj e c t i on us e d byG e or gi a . C r ow e v. T e rry , 426 F . S upp. 2d 1310, 1351 ( N . D . G a . 2005) ; C r ow e v. H e a d, 356 F . S upp. 2d 1339, 1346–473

( N. D. Ga . 2 0 0 5 ) . T h a tp e t i t i o n wa s r e j e c t e d b yth e Ge o r g i ac o u rti n 2 0 0 2 . C r o we then fi l ed a pet i t i on for aw ri tof habeas corpus i n a fe dera l di stri ctcourtand rai se d the sa m e c hal l enge. T erry , 42 6 F . S up p. 2d at13 51 . T he di stri ctcourtdeni ed C row e’ s “ cl ai m thatexec ut i on by l ethal i nj ec t i on i s c ruel and u nu sual puni s hm e nt . ” I d. a t1354. C r ow e s oughtac e rt i f i c a t e of appe a l abi l i ty , s e e 28 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 ( c ) , w h ic h w a s g r a n te d w ith r e s p e c t to s e v e r a l o th e ris s u e s r a is e d in hi s pet i t i on bu tdeni ed w i th res pectt o h i s c hal l enge t o the m etho d o f l ethal i nj e c t i on. W e a f

f i rm e d the de ni a l bythe di s tr i c tc ourtof C r ow e ’ s pe t i t i on on J une 2 7 , 2 0 0 7 . H a ll, 4 9 0 F .3 d a t 8 4 8 . O n O ct ob er12 , 20 07 , C row e f i l ed hi s thi rd chal l enge t o the m etho d o f l ethal i nj e c t i on i n the f

orm of ac i vi l c om pl a i ntunde rthe C i vi l R i ght s A c tof 1871, 42 U . S . C . § 1 98 3. T he di stri ctcourtsua s po nt e di sm i ss ed the com pl ai ntas barr ed be c aus e the c l a i m tha tthe m e thod of e xe c ut i on w a s c rue l a nd unus ua l puni s hm e nt h a d a lr e a d y b e e n d e c id e d w h e n th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d e n ie d C r o w e ’s p e titio n f o raw r it of habe a s c orpus . T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi s m i s s e d C r ow e ’ s c om pl a i nta s f r i vol ous u n d e rth e P r i s o n L i t i g a t i o n R e f o rm Ac t , 2 8 U. S . C . § 1 9 1 5 A( b ) ( 1 ) . C r o we ap p e a le d . A f t e rw e r e c e i ve d br i e f

s f r om both pa rt i e s a nd s c he dul e d or a l a r gum e nt , the S upr e m e C ourtde ni e d C r ow e ’ s pe t i t i on f oraw r i tof

c e rt i or a r i aboutourde c i s i on4

tha ta f f i rm e d the de ni a l of

hi s f e de r a l habe a s c orpus pe t i t i on. C r ow e v. H a l l , N o. 0 7 - 9 0 9 6 ( U .S . A p r . 2 1 , 2 0 0 8 ) . O n M a y8 , th e S u p e r io rC o u rt o f D o u g la s C o u n ty o r d e r e d C r o w e ’s e x e c u tio n a t th e r e q u e s t o f ad is tr ic t a tto rn e y . T h e G e o r g ia D epartm entof C orre ct i on s s etM ay22 , 20 08 , as the dat e of e xecut i on . T he di stri ct c o u rt d e n ie d C r o w e ’s m o tio n f o ras ta yo f

h is e x e c u tio n , a n d C r o w e h a s m o v e d in th is C o u rt f

o ras ta y p e n d in g o u rr e s o lu tio n o f h is ap p e a l. T he S up re m e C ou rtof the U ni t ed S t at es has e xp l ai ned thata s t ayi s an eq u i t ab l e rem ed y n o tav ai l ab l e as a m att er o f ri g h tan d b efo re a co u rtg ran t s a st ay, i tm us tc ons i de r“ the r e l a t i ve ha rm s t o the pa rt i e s , ” “ the l i ke l i hood of s uc c e s s on th e m e r its ,” a n d “th e e x te n t to w h ic h th e in m a te h a s d e la y e d u n n e c e s s a r ilyin br i ngi ng the c l a i m . ” N e l s on v. C a m pbe l l , 541 U . S . 637, 649–50, 124 S . C t . 2117, 2126 ( 2004) . W e c ons i de rthe r e l a t i ve ha rm s t o the pa rt i e s byba l a nc i ng the c om pe t i ng i nt e r e s t s of

C r ow e a nd G e or gi a . M c N a i rv. A l l e n, 515 F . 3d 1168, 1172 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 8 ) ( citi n g N elso n , 5 1 4 U .S . at 6 4 4 , 1 2 4 S . C t. at 2 1 2 3 ). “A d efen d an t ’ s i n t eresti n b ei n g free fro m cru el an d u n u su al p u n i sh m en ti s p ri m ary; h o w e v e r , th e S ta te ’s in te r e s t in e f f e c tu a tin g its ju d g m e n t r e m a in s s ig n if ic a n t.” I d . V i ct i m s of c ri m e a l so “ have an i m po rt anti nt er es ti n the t i m el y e nforcement of a s e nt e nc e . ” H i l l v. M c D onough, 547 U . S . 574, 584, 126 S . C t . 2096, 2104 ( 2006) ( c itin g C a ld e r o n v . T h o m p s o n , 5 2 3 U .S . 5 3 8 , 5 5 6 , 1 1 8 S . C t. 1 4 8 9 , 1 5 0 1 ( 1 9 9 8 ) ) .5

“[ L ]ik e o th e rs ta y ap p lic a n ts , in m a te s s e e k in g tim e to c h a lle n g e th e m a n n e rin w hi ch the S t at e pl ans t o execut e them m ustsa t i sf y a l l of the re qu i re m ent s f or a s t a y , i nc l udi ng as how i ng of as i gni f i c a ntpos s i bi l i tyof

s uc c e s s on the m e r i t s . ” I d. A l though the di s tr i c tc ourtc onc l ude d tha tpr i nc i pl e s of r e s j udi c a t aa nd c ol l a t e r a l e s t oppe l ba rr e d C r ow e ’ s c l a i m , w hi c h ha d a l r e a dybe e n r e j e c t e d bythe s t a t e a nd f

e de r a l c ourt s tha the a r d C r ow e ’ s habe a s pe t i t i ons , w e ne e d notde c i de th a t is s u e ; C r o w e ’s ap p e a l c a n n o t s u c c e e d o n th e m e r its b e c au s e h is c o m p la in t is un t i m el y. S ee W el di ng S ervs. , Inc. v. F orm an, 50 9 F . 3d 13 51 , 13 56 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) ( “T h is c o u rt m a y a f f irm o n a n yg r o u n d s u p p o rte d b yth e r e c o r d .” ) . “A ll c ons t i tut i ona l c l a i m s br oughtunde r§ 1983 a r e t orta c t i ons , s ubj e c tt o the s t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons gove rni ng pe r s ona l i nj urya c t i ons i n the s t a t e w he r e the § 1983 a c t i on h a s b e e n b r o u g h t.” M c N a ir , 5 1 5 F .3 d a t 1 1 7 3 . C r o w e b r o u g h t h is c la im in G e or gi a , w he r e the gove rni ng l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od i s tw o y e a r s . G a . C ode A nn. § 9- 3-33 ; P ort erv. R ay , 46 1 F . 3d 13 15 , 13 23 (11th C i r. 20 06 ). W e have expl ai ned that

“ a m etho d o f e xecut i on cl ai m ac crues on the l at erof the dat e on w hi ch st at e r evi ew i s c om pl e t e , orthe da t e on w hi c h the c api t a l l i t i ga ntbe c om e s s ubj e c tt o ane w or s u b s ta n tia llyc h a n g e d e x e c u tio n p r o to c o l.” M c N a ir , 5 1 5 F .3 d a t 1 1 7 4 . C r o w e ’s c la im a c c ru e d n o la te rth a n 2 0 0 1 , w h e n , a f te rd ir e c t r e v ie w o f

h is conv i ct i on s had been com pl et ed, C row e bec am e s ubj ec tt o the m etho d o f l ethal6

i nj ec t i on thathe chal l enges. S ee i d. at11 77 . C row e’ s c om pl ai ntw as fi l ed se vera l y e a r s b e y o n d th e ap p lic ab le tw o - y e a rs ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s . U n d e ro u rp r e c e d e n t, C r o w e d id n o t h a v e as ig n if ic a n t p o s s ib ilityo f

s u c c e s s o n th e m e r its o f h is c la im . Id. at11 78 (“ [T ] he di stri ctcourtabused i t s di sc re t i on by det erm i ni ng [the pl ai nt i ff ] ha d as i gni f

i c a ntpos s i bi l i ty of

s uc c e s s on the m e r i t s of hi s c l a i m w he n, i n f

a c t , the c o m p la in t w a s f

ile d b e y o n d th e ap p lic ab le tw o - y e a rs ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s .” ) . T he S upr e m e C ourtha s e xpl a i ne d tha t , “ [ g] i ve n the S t a t e ’ s s i gni f i c a nt i nt e r e s ti n e nf

or c i ng i t s c r i m i na l j udgm e nt s , the r e i s as tr ong e qui t abl e pr e s um pt i on agai nstthe grantof a s t ayw here a c l ai m coul d h ave been broug htatsuch a t i m e a s t o a l l ow c ons i de r a t i on of the m e r i t s w i thoutr e qui r i ng e ntryof as t a y . ” N e l s on v. C am pb el l , 54 1 U . S . 63 7, 65 0, 12 4 S . C t . 21 17 , 21 26 (200 4) (c i t at i on s om i tt ed). In se vera l deci si on s, w e have re fuse d t o g ranta di l at ory s t aysoug hton the eve of an exec ut i on . S ee , e. g. , D i az v. M cD on ou gh , 47 2 F . 3d 84 9, 85 0 (11 th C i r. 20 06 ); In r e H ut c he r s on, 468 F . 3d 747, 749 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ; H i l l v. M c D onough, 464 F . 3d 1256, 1259 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ( he r e i na f t e rH i l l I I ) . C r ow e f

i l e d hi s c om pl a i nte i ght m onths a go, be f

or e hi s e xe c ut i on da t e w a s s e t , buthi s de l a yof m or e tha n f

i ve ye ar s i n b ri ng i ng hi s c om pl ai ntun der the C i vi l R i gh t s A ctof 18 71 w as un re as on abl e. O u rd e c is io n in J o n e s v . A lle n , 4 8 5 F .3 d 6 3 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) , is in s tru c tiv e .7

J o n e s c h a lle n g e d th e m e th o d o f le th a l in je c tio n in A lab a m au n d e rth e C iv il R ig h ts A c tof 1871 t e n m onths a f

t e rw e a f f i rm e d the de ni a l of

hi s habe a s pe t i t i on but be f or e the S upr e m e C ourtde ni e d hi s pe t i t i on f oraw r i tof

c e rt i or a r i a nd be f

or e the st at e s etan execut i on dat e. Id. at63 7– 39 & n. 2. W hi l e J on es ’ s c om pl ai ntw as p e n d in g in th e d is tr ic t c o u rt, A lab a m as e t a n e x e c u tio n d a te , a n d w e d e n ie d h is m o tio n to s ta y th e e x e c u tio n . W e e x p la in e d th a t J o n e s h a d f ile d h is c la im “n e a r ly f oury e a r s a f

t e rA l aba m am a de l e tha l i nj e c t i on i t s pr i m a rym e thod of e xe c ut i on” a n d c o u ld s e e “n o c o n v in c in g r e a s o n w h y. . . J o n e s c o u ld n o t h a v e b r o u g h t h is m etho d-of-e xecut i on chal l enge soon erthan h e di d. ” I d. at63 9– 40 . Jones’ s del ay le f t “little d o u b t th a t th e r e a l p u rp o s e b e h in dh is c la im [ w a s ] to s e e kad e la yo f h is exec ut i on , no tm er el y t o eff ec tan al t er at i on of the m anner i n w hi ch i t[w as ] carr i ed ou t . ” I d. (quo t i ng H arri s v. John son, 37 6 F . 3d 41 4, 41 8 (5th C i r. 20 04 )) (i nt ernal qu ot at i on m ark o m i tt ed). W e m us tc ons i de rw he the rC r ow e “ c oul d ha ve br oughthi s c l a i m ‘ a ts uc h a t i m e a s t o a l l ow c ons i de r a t i on of the m e r i t s w i thoutr e qui r i ng e ntryof as t a y , ’ ” i d. ( q u o tin g N e ls o n , 5 4 1 U .S . a t 6 5 0 , 1 2 4 S . C t. a t 2 1 2 6 ) , a n d th e a n s w e rto th is que s t i on i s c l e a r e rtha n i tw a s i n J one s . C r ow e w a i t e d l onge rtha n J one s t o br i ng hi s c l a i m ; C r ow e w a i t e d a l m os tthr e e t i m e s the l e ngth of the appl i c abl e s t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons . C r ow e a l s o de l a y e d f i l i ng hi s c om pl a i ntunt i l a f t e rhe br ought8

chal l enges t o the m etho d o f l ethal i nj ec t i on i n tw o p et i t i on s f or w ri t s of habea s c o rp u s . T he onl y e xc us e C r ow e of f e r s f orhi s de l a yi s a n a r gum e nttha the c oul d not h a v e b r o u g h t h is c o m p la in t in th is c ir c u it u n til a f te rth e S u p r e m e C o u rt h e ld in H ill thata c hal l enge t o a m etho d o f e xecut i on i s c og ni zabl e und erthe C i vi l R i gh t s A ct o f 1 8 7 1 , 5 4 7 U. S . a t5 7 6 , 1 2 6 S . C t . a t2 1 0 0 , b u tth a ta r g u m e n tf a i l s f o rtwo r e a s ons . F i r s t , w e ha ve e xpr e s s l yr e j e c t e d i t . G r a y s on v. A l l e n, 491 F . 3d 1318, 1322 ( 11th C i r . 2007) ( “ [ N ] othi ng pr e c l ude d [ the pl a i nt i f f ] f r om f i l i ng a§ 1983 a c t i on be f

or e the S upr e m e C ourt ’ s de c i s i on i n H i l l . ” ) . S e c ond, C r ow e ’ s a r gum e nt f a ils to e x p la in w h y h e w a ite d m o r e th a n 1 4 m o n th s a f te rH ill w a s d e c id e d to f ile h is c o m p la in t. C r o w e c o u ld h a v e f ile d h is c o m p la in t y e a r s a g o b u t w a ite d u n til h is e x e c u tio n w a s im m in e n t. C r ow e c a nnots uc c e e d on the m e r i t s of hi s unt i m e l yc om pl a i nt , a nd the ba l a nc e of

e qui t i e s doe s nots upportas t a y . C r ow e ’ s m ot i on f oras t a yof e x e c u tio n is D E N I E D .