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 17, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [D O N OT P UBL ISH] IN TH E U NITE D S TAT ES C OUR T OF AP PE ALS F OR TH E E LE V EN TH C IR C U IT

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1392 9

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C . D ock et N o . 07-00342-CV-W S-C TH OMA S D . A RT HU R, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant, ve rs us RICHAR D ALLEN, GRA NT T C UL LI VE R, D ef en dants -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ App ea l f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt f or the S o u t h e rn D i s t r i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (S ep te m be r 17, 200 7) Be fo re BI RC H , BL A CK

and B A RKE T T , Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Pl ai nti ff T hom as D . A rthur

is anA la bam a de ath r owinm at e sc he dul ed f or ex ec uti on b y

le tha l i nj ec tio n on27 S ep te m be r 2007 . O n 17 Apr il 2007 , the S ta te of Ala bam a (“ Alabam a”) filed its m otion to set an execution date. O n 14 May2

2007 , Arthur filed a 42 U .S .C. § 1983 com plaint in the United State s District Co urt f or the S outhe rnD istri ct

of A la bam a, c ha lle ngi ng A la

bam a’ s m ethod of ex ec u t i o n . On 2 2 J u n e 2 0 0 7 , t h e A l ab ama S up re m e C o u rt g ra n t edAl ab ama’s m oti on, and s et

the e xe cu tio n date f

or 27 S ep te m

be r 2007 . A la

bam a m ove d to dism iss the com

plaint on 25 Jun e 2007, alleging that Arthur’ s com plaint was barr ed by the statut e of

li m itatio ns, la ch es , or

f or f ai lur e to s ta te ac la im

upo n w hic h r el ie f co uld

be gr an te d. T he dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d A la bam a’ s m oti on o n th e ba sis of la ch es . Arthur

v. A lle n, N o. 07- 0342 , 200 7 W L 232 0069 ( S. D . A la . Aug. 10, 200 7) ( “ A rthur ”) . A rthur ti m el y appe al ed . A ft er

an e xpe dit ed

br ie fi ng sc he dul e, w e af

fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s j udgm en t di sm iss ing A rthur ’ s § 1 983 ac tio n. I. BACKG ROUND T he de ta ils of

A rthur ’ s of

fe nse are se t f

orth i n our opi nio n a ff

irm ing the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s j udgm en t de ny ing A rthur f ed er al ha be as r el ie f. S ee A rthur

v. Allen, 452 F.3d 1234 (11 Cir. ), m odified on reh’ g, 459 F.3d 1310 (11 Cir. th th 2006 ), cert. denied, U .S . , 127 S. Ct. 2033 (2007). B riefly , in 1982, A rthur, while serving a sentence f or m urder in the second degree and assigned to a work re le as e ce nte r, m

ur de re d T ro y

W ic ke r, the hus band o f one of A rthur ’ s param our s,3

by shoot ing W icker through the right ey e, while he w as asleep, with a . 22 caliber pi st ol . A rthur

w as ind ic te d f

or m ur de r, c onvi ct ed , and s en te nc ed to de ath by e l e c t r o c u t i o n i n 1 9 8 2 . H i s c o n v i c t i o n an d s e n t e n c e w e r e a f

f i rme db y t h e A l ab a ma Co urt of Appe al s, A rthur

v. S ta te , 472 S o. 2d 6 50 ( A la . Cr im . App. 198 4) , but re ve rs ed by the A la bam a Su pr em e Co urt be ca

use the tr ia l c ourt ha d im pr ope rl y pe rm itt ed e vid en ce of

A rthur ’ s pr ior

m ur de r co nvi ct ion . I n r e A rthur , 472 S o. 2d 665, 668-70 (A la. 1985 ). T he case w as rem anded for a newtrial. A rthur v. S tate, 472 So . 2d 6 70 ( A la . Cr im . App. 198 5) . I n 19 87, A rthur w as a ga in c onvi ct ed

and se nte nc ed to de ath. H is c onvi ct ionw as r ev er se d, how ev er , be ca use of the adm iss ionof

A rthur ’ s st at em en t t o th e pol ic e af te r he ha d in voke d hi s r igh t t o rem ain silent. A rthur v. S tate, 575 So. 2d 116 5, 1171-75 (Ala. Crim . App. 1990), ce rt . de nie d, I n r e A rthur , 575 S o. 2d 1 191 (A la . 199 1) ( pe r curi am). I n 19 91, Arthur was indicted and convicted of m urder for pecuniary

gain. A rthur wa s se nte nc ed to de ath in199 2. H is c onvi ct ionand s en te nc e w er e af fi rm ed . A rthur

v. St at e, 711 S o. 2d 1 031 (A la . Cr im . App. 199 6) , a ff irm ed , I n r e A rthur , 711 S o. 2d 1097 (A la. 1997 ). H e did not file a petition for writ of c ertiorar i to the United St at es S upr em e Co urt.4

Approxim ately

twe nty -nine m onth s later, in Septem ber 2000, Ala

bam a filed a m otion with the A labam a Suprem e Court to set an execution date. I n January 20 01 , Arth urfil eda pe ti ti on forpo st co nv ic ti on rel ie f wit h t he st at e tr ia l co ur t. T he pe tit ion , how ev er , w as dis m iss ed a s un tim el y

be ca use of am an da tor

y tw oy ear lim itations period required by Ala bam a Rule of C rim inal Procedure 32. 2(c), and that decision wa s affir m ed. Arthur v. State, 820 So. 2d 886 , 888-90 (Ala . Cr im . App. 200 1) ( pe r curi am), c er t. de nie d, A rthur

v. A la bam a, 535 U . S. 105 3, 12 2 S . Ct. 1 90 9 (2 00 2) . Arth ur ’s exe cu ti on da te was s etfor27 Apri l 2 00 1. Ex pa rte Arth ur , 82 1 S o. 2 d 2 51 (Ala . 20 01 ). On 2 0 Ap ril 20 01 , Arth urfil eda fed eral pe ti ti on forwritof h ab eas co rp us . T he dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d astay of e xe cu tio n and w e de nie d am oti on t o va cate the stay . A rthur

v. H al ey , 248 F . 3d 1 302, 130 3 ( 11th C ir . 200 1) ( pe r curi am). I n Ju ly 2002 , while Arthur’ s federa l habeas petition wa s pendin g, the A labam a legislature ch an ge d Al ab am a’s m et ho d o f ex ecu ti on fro m ele ct ro cu ti on to let ha l i njec ti on . The ne w st atut e g av e d eat h- ro w in m at es 30 da y s t o e le ctele ct ro cu ti on in st ead . Af ter that period of tim e, Ala bam a’ s sole m ethod of execution would be lethal injec tion. See Ala . C ode § 15-18 -82.1 (2006 Cum ulative Supp.). T he f ed er al dis tr ic t c ourt di sm iss ed A rthur ’ s ha

be as pe tit ionbut

gr an te d a certific ate of a

ppealability . W e af

firm ed the district court’ s denial of habeas relief5

in 2 006, and the S upr em e Co urt de nie d hi s pe tit ionf or w ri t of c er tio rari on 1 6 Apr il 2007 . T he A la

bam a Su pr em e Co urt su

bse que ntl y

e nte re d th e or de r se tti ng the da te of

e xe cu tio n. II. D ISCU SSION A rthur ’ s § 1 983 ac tio n c ha lle nge d A la bam a’ s th re e- dr

ug l etha l i nj ec tio n pr oto co l f or vio la tin g th e E igh th A m en dm en t’ s pr ohi bit iona ga ins t c ru el and unus ua l punis hm en t, and s ough t i nj unc tiv e an d de cl ar at or y j udgm en t t o pr ev en t Alabam a’ s use of the lethal injec tion p rocedure. T he district court dism issed A rthur ’ s § 1 983 ch al le nge , f ind ing that A rthur

de lay ed unn ec es sari ly

in br ing ing his lethal injection challenge. O n appeal, Arthur contends th at the district court er re d inappl y ing the “ spe ci al iz ed e qui ta ble pr inc ipl es ” fo r la ch es and i n dis m iss ing his c om

pla int ba se d onthe se pr inc ipl es w ith out ac le ar standard f or m easuring the tim eliness of his lethal in j ection challenge. W e disagree.

“ [W ] e re vie wthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s di sm iss al of a§ 19 83 m ethod- of

-e xe cu tio n ch al le nge [ unde r the doc tr ine of la ch es ] f or abuse of dis cr et ion . ” G ray son v. All en , 49 1 F .3d13 18 , 13 21 n.2 (11 th Cir .), cert . den ie d, U.S. , S. Ct. , 2007 W L 2086662 , 76 U .S .L .W 3049 (Jul. 26, 2007). “ ‘ [T ] he equitable principles at iss ue w he n in m at es f

ac ing im m ine nt e xe cu tio n de lay

in ra isi ng the ir

§ 19 83 met h o d - o f

- e x e c u t i o n c h a l l e n g e s ar e e qu a l l y a p p l i c ab l e t o r e qu e s t s f

o r b o t h s t a ys6

an d in j unc tiv e re lie f” and are “ not a va ila ble a s am atte r of

r igh t. ’ ” W ill iam s v. A lle n, ___

F . 3d _ __, 200 7 W L 236 8028 a t *2 ( 11th C ir . 200 7) ( quot ing G ray son, 491 F. 3d at 13 22) . T hose e qui ta ble pr inc ipl es inc lud e (1 ) “ se nsi tiv [i ty ] to the St at e’ s stro ng i nte re st i n e nf or ci ng i ts c ri m ina l j udgm en ts w ith out und ue int er fe re nc e fr om

the f ed er al c ourts, ” (2 ) the pla int if f’ s satis fa ct ionof

“ al l of the re qui re m en ts f

or astay , inc lud ing asho w ing of asig nif ic an t po ssi bil ity

of suc ce ss on the m er its , ” (3 ) the appl ic at ionof “ a str ong equit ab le pr es um pti on a ga ins t the gr an t of astay w he re the c 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 , ” an d ( 4) pr ote ct ionof th e “ St at es fro m

di la to ry or s pe cu la ti ve su it s.” Hi ll v. Mc Don ou gh , U .S. , , 126 S. Ct . 209 6, 210 4 ( 2006 ) (quot ing N el son v. Cam pbe ll, 541 U . S. 637 , 649 -5 0, 124 S. Ct. 2117 , 2126). The strong interest of the State and the victim s’ s fam ilies is “ the tim ely

enforce m ent of a sentence” , id. at , 126 S. Ct. at 2104, which acq ui res “ an ad de d m or al di m en si on ” o nc e p os t-t ria l p ro ceed in gs fin al iz e. Cal de ro n v . Tho m

ps on , 52 3 U.S. 5 38 , 55 6 1 18 S. Ct. 1 48 9, 1 50 1 (1 99 8) . A. Application of Specia lized Equitable Pr inciples for La ches Arthur contend s that the dist rict court er red by apply ing th e specialized equitable principl es instead of apply ing th e elem ents of laches or the proper legal standard s f

or aF ed er al Ru le of

Ci vil P ro ce dur e Ru le 12 d ism iss al . H e m ai nta ins7

that w e have not

r ep la ce d th e doc tr ine of

la ch es w ithspe ci al iz ed

e qui ta ble pr inc ipl es and tha t su chadis m iss al r equir es af ac t- spe ci fi c inquir

y ina ppr opr ia te on a m oti on t o di sm iss . H e ar gue s th at his a ct ion , w hic h w as f

ile d f our m onths before his scheduled execution, was f iled sufficiently

in advance to perm it lim ited dis co ve ry on h is p ur

porte d de lay

and the a lle ge d pr ej udi ce to the S ta te and the v i c t i m’s f a mi l y. Re ly ing upo n th e an al y sis se t f orth i n R uth er fo rd v. Mc D onou gh, 466 F . 3d 970 (1 1 Ci r. ), c er

t. de nie d, U . S. , 127 S . Ct . 465 ( 2006 ), and G ray son, the th dis tr ic t c ourt f

ound that A rthur

ha d un re as ona

bly de lay ed in fi lin g hi s § 1 983 ac tio n. I n c onsi de ri ng the dis m iss al of ale tha l i nj ec tio n c ha lle nge , c ourts are to apply equitable principles which m andate dism issal when the plaintiff “ delay ed u n n e c e s s a r i l y i n b r i n g i n g th e c l a i m, . . . kn o w i n g f u l l we l l th a tth e d i s c o v e ry, ev ide nti ar

y he ar ing , and d ec isi on o n th e m er its that he de m an ds c oul d no t po ssi bly be accom plish ed” w ithin the short period of tim e betwe en filing and the schedu led execution date. Rutherf

ord, 466 F.3d at 974 (also citing and qu oting Hill, U .S . at , 126 S . Ct . a t 21 04 ( “ T he f ed er al c our

ts c anand s houl d pr ote ct S ta te s f ro m dil at or y . . . sui ts” or

“ sui ts . . . f

ile d to o late in the day . ”) ; se e al so G ray son, 491 F. 3d at 13 21 ( “ [C ] ourts c onsi de ri ng d ism iss al of adil at or y § 19 83 s uit

se ek ing inj unc tiv e re lie f shou ld r ec ogni ze the ‘ str ong equit ab le pr es um pti on a ga ins t the8

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 ” (quot ing Ru the rf or d, 466 F. 3d at 97 4 ( quot ing H ill , U . S. a t , 126 S . Ct . a t 21 04) )) ; W ill iam s, F . 3d at , 200 7 W L 236 8028 a t *4 ( “ [T ] he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n in dis m iss ing W ill iam s’ s § 1 983 ac tio n du e to h is unne ce ssary de lay , e spe ci al ly given th e strong presum

ption against the grant of equitable relief. ”). A s th e dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed , A rthur is una ble to de fe at

the S ta te ’ s m oti on to d ism iss . A ny

c la im of r ea sona ble ign or an ce of

the S ta te ’ s le tha l i nj ec tio n pr oto co l i s be lie d by

A rthur ’ s c om

pla int in w hic h he a lle ge d, ba se d on

“ inf orm at ionand b el ie f, ” that A la bam a use s th e thr ee -dru g c oc kta il, spe ci fi ca lly ide nti fi ed a s T hio pe nta l, P avulo n, and p ota ssi um c hlo ri de , and h is ac know le dgm en t tha t a

num be r of A la bam a ca se s w er e fi le d inthe sum m er and fa ll of 200 6 a lle gin g th at

A la bam a use d th e sam e thr ee -dru g c oc kta il. R -1 a t 6- 7; A rthur , sli p op . a t , 200 7 W L 232 0069 a t *2 ; se e e. g. , Jon es v. A lle n, 485 F . 3d 635, 641 n. 3 ( 11th C ir . ), c er t. de nie d, U . S. , 127 S . Ct . 216 0 ( 2007 ); G ray son, 491 F.3d at 1323 ; W illiam s, F. 3d at , 2007 W L 2368028 at *3. F urther, nothin g pr ec lud ed

A rthur f ro m f ili ng a § 19 83 c ha lle nge to our

c ir cu it pr ec ed en t m an da ti ng th atm et ho d- of -ex ecu ti on cla im s b e rai se d o nl y in a habe as pe ti ti on . See W illiam s, F. 3d at , 2007 W L 2368028 at *2 (citing Gray son, 491 F.3d at9

1322 ). A rthur

did not f ile his § 19 83 a ct ionunt il al m ost 16 m onths a ft er

the Su pr em e Co urt gr an te d ce rti orar i in H ill v. Cr osby , 546 U . S. 115 8, 126 S . Ct . 1189 (2006), and alm ost 11 m onth s after the Suprem e Court clar ified in Hill that inm at es c oul d f

ile § 19 83 c ha lle nge s to astate ’ s e xe cu tio n pr oc ed ur es . A lth ough

“ the e qui ta

ble c onsi de ratio ns i n e ac h c as e ar e na tur al ly dif fe re nt, ” ev enif

A rthur w oul d have be ene nti tle d to ade ci sio n onthe m er its if he ha d br ough t hi s su it in tim e to a llo wc onsi de ratio n of the m er its w ith out

the e ntr y of astay , the str ong pr es um pti on a ga ins t a

stay ope rate s a ga ins t hi m . S ee Jon es , 485 F . 3d at 64 1 n. 4. B. S tandard s f

or T im el ine ss o f a L etha l I nj ec tio n C ha lle nge Arthur argues that, if specia lized equitable principles app ly , the e quiti es weig h i n fa vo r of

Arth urli ti ga ti ng th e m eri ts of h is cas e an d a ga in stdi sm is sa l. He as se rt s th at

the standard s f

or the ti m el ine ss o f his c ha lle nge are nov el and unde fi ne d. H e m ai nta ins that hi s c om pla int w as pr om

pt b y r ea sona ble standard s because it w as filed in less than a m onth after the Suprem e Court denied certiorari on his feder al habeas corpus petition and before the A labam a Suprem e Court had se t an ex ecu ti on da te . The district court noted that we have “ declined to determ ine precisely when [a § 19 83 m ethod- of

-e xe cu tio n c ha lle nge ] be co m es r ipe , but [ w e] ha [v e] c le ar ly re j ec te d th e not ionthat de nia l of c er tio rari is re qui re d, ” an d c onc lud ed that A rthur10

unreasonablydelay ed filing his action when he did not file for nine m onth s after w e ha d de nie d r el ie f in h is f ed er al ha be as a ct ionin A ugus t 20 06. A rthur , sli p op . at , 200 7 W L 232 0069 a t 4. I n r e j e c t i n g s i mi l a r

c h a l l e n g e s , w e h a v e h e l dth a tw a i t i n g u n t i l th e S up r e me Co urt ha s de nie d c er

tio rari r ev ie wof

af ed er al ha be as pe tit ionor

e ve n un til a ce rt ior ar i pe tit ionha s be enpe ndi ng f or ove r thr ee m onths, Jon es , 485 F . 3d at 64 0 n. 2, or “ unt il af te r the S ta te f

ile [s a ] m oti on t o se t the e xe cu tio n date is too late to av oid the ine vit ab le ne ed

f or astay of e xe cu tio n” and i s to o late to al lowf or af ull ad ju d i ca t i o n o f t h e mer i t s o f h i s ac t i o n . S ee Wil l i ams, F.3 dat, 2 0 0 7 WL 23 68 02 8 a t * 2. Arthur’ s § 198 3 action was filed bef ore his execution date was set but wa s filed only four m onth s before the exec ution date w as ultim ately set. In Ala

bam a,

“ it is comm on practice for the State to ask the A labam a Suprem e Court to set an e x e c u t i o n d a t e f

o r ad e a t h r o wi n ma t e s h o rt l y a f t e r th e U n i t e dS t a t e s S up r e me Co ur t h as de ni edcert io rari rev ie w of t he [in m at e’s] feder al habe as pe ti ti on . W ill iam s, F . 3d at , 200 7 W L 236 8028 a t *2 ( ci tin g Jo ne s, 485 F . 3d at 63 9 n. 2) . Whe n A rthur

f ile d hi s pe tit ionf

or w ri t of c er tio rari in the S upr em e Co urt on 11 January

2007 , it w as clear

that a denial of the petition would rem ove the final obst ac le to lif

tin g th e stay

of e xe cu tio n. O nc e the stay w as li ft ed , e xe cu tio n c oul dFollowingthe Hill decision and c larification that a method-of-execution cha lleng e wa s 1 to be filed a s a § 1983 ac t ion and not as a pe tition for writ of habe as cor pus, there w as no impediment to Arthur seeking relief under § 1983 during the pendenc y of his ha beas corpus pe tition. See Ne lson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 643, 124 S. C t. 2117, 2122 (2004), Gr ay son, 491 F.3d at 1323; Wi lliams, F.3d at , 2007 WL23688028 at *2. 11 be se t i n a s f

ewa s 30 day s. S ee A la . R. App. P . 8( d) (1 ); se e al so J one s, 485 F . 3d at 639 n. 2. A s th e dis tr ic t c ourt no te d, f our m onths i s no t e noug h ti m e fo r thi s ca se to be f

ull y a dj udi cate d. S ee A rthur , sli p op . a t , 200 7 W L 232 0069 a t *4 an d n. 6. A rthur

w as on n oti ce that a

c ha lle nge to A la

bam a’ s m ethod- of

-e xe cu tio n w a s a v a i l ab l e u n d e r

§ 1 9 8 3 a s e a r l y a s J u n e 2 0 0 6 , a s ar e s u l to f th e S up r e me C o u rt ’s d e c i s i o ni n H i l l , o r Au g u s t2 0 0 6 , a s ar e s u l to f o t h e r f i l e dA l ab a ma ac tio ns. 1 IIII. CO NC LUS ION W e co nc lud e that the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n indis m iss ing A rthur ’ s § 1 983 ac tio n du e to l ac he s, e spe ci al ly giv enthe str ong pr es um

pti on against the grant of equitable relief. T here w as no justification for A rthur’ s failure to b ri ng h is l etha l i nj ec tio n c ha lle nge e ar lie r to a llo wsuf fi ci en t t im e fo r fu ll ad j udi catio n onthe m er its of thi s c la im . A cc or din gly , the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s j udgm en t of di sm is sa l i s AFF IRM ED.12

BA RKE T T , Ci rc uit

Jud ge , dis se nti ng: I dissent believin g it to be error f or the district court to refuse to hear an E igh th A m en dm en t c ha lle nge to A la bam a’ s le tha l i nj ec tio n pr oto co l si m ply b e c au s e th e § 1 9 8 3 p e t i t i o n e r f a i l e dt o f i l e h i s c l a i m a s s o o n a s th e A l ab a ma le gis la tur e ch an ge d A la

bam a’ s m ethod of

e xe cu tio n to le tha l i nj ec tio n. S ee a lso W illiam s v. A llen, N o. 07-13638 at *5, - --F .3d--- , 2007 W L 2368028 (11th Cir. Aug . 21 , 20 07 ) (Ba rk et t, J ., di ss en ti ng ). First, it is wholly

unreasonable to expect an inm ate to have predicted sc ie nti fi c da ta

—on ly r ec en tly a va ila ble —tha t su gge sts that i na de qua ci es in the thr ee -dru g pr oto co l i nf

lic t “ cr ue l and unusu al pun ish m en t” a s pr osc ri be d by the Eighth Am endm ent. S ee id. A ssum ing arguendo that the three-drug protocol does vio la te the E igh th A m en dm en t, and tha t the sc ie nti fi c ev ide nc e that sh ow ed thi s did not c om e int o e xis te nc e unt il som e tim e af te r A la bam a ad opt ed

the pr oto co l, the pr ac tic al e ff

ec t of our lawin thi s are a is t o kn ow ing ly pe rm it the unc onst itu tio na l e xe cu tio n of se ve ra l i nm at es , sim

ply be ca use the inm at es ha d th e m isf ortun e of be ing se nte nc ed

to de ath be fo re the sc ie nti fi c da tar ev ea lin g th e co nst itu tio na l i nf

irm ity of suc h e xe cu tio ns c oul d have be enkno w n. T his is pa te ntl y una cc ep ta

ble . I nde ed , the Co nst itu tio n f or bid s th e inf

lic tio n of “ cr ue l and13

unus ual puni shm ent” at the tim e of its im posit ion, regar dless of the circum stances at the ti m e the de ath pe na lty se nte nc e w as im

pose d. Second, I continu e to find untenabl e the suggestio n that the petitio ner

“ shou ld h av e an tic ipate d th e de nia l of a ll re lie f an d f

ile d th is c as e pr ior

to the determ ination of his pendin g case. ” Se e id. ( em phasis in original). I ndeed, even the S ta te of

A la bam a its el f is n ot s o bo ld and the re fo re w ill not se t an e xe cu tio n date until after the U nited States Suprem e Court denies certiorari re view of an inm at e’ s f

ed er al ha be as pe tit ion . S ee Jon es v. A lle n, 485 F . 3d 6 35, 639 n. 2 ( 11th Cir. 2007 ). Fo r th es e rea so ns , I di ss en t.