FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT J an. 29, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [ PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 08- 1010 0

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNos . 06 -0 06 95 -CV-N & 0 6- 00 91 9- CV-N W IL LI E M CNA IR, Pl ai nti ff -C ount er -D ef

en dant, JAM ES CALLAHAN, Pl ai nti ff -C ount er -D ef

en dantAppellee, ve rs us RICH ARD AL LEN, Com m issio ner, A la bam a D ep ar

tm en t of Co rr ec tio ns, ind ivi dua lly a n di n h i s o f

f i c i a l c ap a c i t y, GRA NT T C UL LI VE R, W arden, Holm an Corre ctional F a c i l i t y, i n h i s i n d i v i du a l an do f f i c i a l c ap a c i t y, D ef

en dants -C ount er -C la im an tsAppe llants .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Middle District of Alabam a

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J an ua ry29, 200 8)2

Be fo re T JO FL A T , BL A CK and W IL SO N , Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. BL ACK , C ircuit Judg e: Jam es Ca llahan is an A la bam a de ath r owinm at e sc he dul ed f or e xe cu tio n on January 31, 2008. O n October 11, 2006 , C allahan filed an action under 42 U. S. C. § 1 9 8 3 , c o n t e n d i n g th e me t h o do f e x e c u t i o n c h o s e n b y t h e S t a t e o f A l ab a ma co ns ti tu te s crue l an d u nu su al pu ni sh m en t i n v io la ti on of t he Eig ht h Am en dm en t. Fi ndi ng C al lahan’ s c as e ha d asig nif ic an t po ssi bil ity

of suc ce ed ing on i ts m er its , the dis tr ic t c ourt e nte re d astay of e xe cu tio n onD ec em

be r 14, 200 7, in or de r to pe rm it Ca llahan to f

ull y li tig at e his c onst itu tio na l c ha lle nge . O n a ppe al , App el la nt s co nt en d t he co ur t ab us edit s d is cret io n b y en te rin g t he st ay . W e do n ot r ea chthe r el at ive m er its of Ca llahan’ s c onst itu tio na l c la im b ec au s e w e c o n cl u d e t h e c l ai m i s b arre db y t h e s t at u t e o f l i m i t at i o n s . C al l ah an ’s lim itatio ns p er iod

be gan to r

un o n Ju ly

31, 200 2, w he n he se le ct ed le tha l i nj ec tio n as the m ethod by

w hic h he w oul d be put

to de ath, and e xpi re d tw o y ears late r, on Ju ly 31, 2 00 4. In li gh t o f th e fac t Ca ll ah an ’s com pl ai nt was fi le d m or e th an two y ears be y ond the li m itatio ns p er iod , the dis tr ic t c ourt a buse d it s di sc re tio n by en te rin g ast ay

of e xe cu ti on . W e n ow v acat e th atde ci si on .Although Ca llahan wa s not charg ed with ra pe, for ensic e vidence sug g ested How ell was 1 sexually assaulted pr ior to her de ath. 3

I. BACKGROUND T he f ull de ta ils of

Ca llahan’ s c ri m e ar e se t f orth i n Ca lla han v. Ca m

pbe ll , 427 F.3d 897 , 903-10 (11th Cir. 2005). I n short, on February 3, 1982, Callahan abducted 26-y ear- old Rebecca S uzanne How ell from a laundrom at in Jacksonv ille, Alabam a. H e m

urdered her, then dum

ped her body

in a cre ek, where it w as discovered two we eks later. 1 O n June 26, 198 2, Ca llahan w as c onvi ct ed of ac ap ita l of

fe nse , and s hortly thereaf ter w as sentenced to death. T he Alabam a Suprem e Court re versed Callahan’ s convictio n and sentence after finding in crim inating statem ents had be en ad m it te d i m

pr op erl y , andth e cas e was rem an de d fo r a n ew tr ia l. E x parte Ca lla han , 471 S o. 2d 4 63 ( A la . 198 5) . A t the se co nd tri al , the j ur y a ga in f ound Callahan guilty , and a sentence of death w as re- im posed. Both the Alabam a Court o f C ri m i n al Ap p ea l s an dth e A l ab ama S up re m e C o u rt af fi rmedCa l l ah an ’s co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e. Ca lla han v. Sta te , 557 S o. 2d 1 292 (A la . Cr im . App. 1989 ); aff’d , E

x parte Ca lla han , 557 So. 2d 13 11 (Ala. 1989 ). Callahan’ s convictio n and sentence becam e final on Oc tober 1, 1990, w hen th e Uni te d S ta te s Su pr em e Co ur t d en ie d h is pe ti ti on forcert io rari . See Callahan v.4

Ala ba ma , 498 U . S. 881 , 111 S . Ct . 216 ( 1990 ). C al lahan th enf ile d astate post co nvi ct ionm oti on. T he tr ia l de nie d th e m oti on, and the c ourt of appe al s affi rm edth e d en ia l. Ca lla han v. Sta te , 76 7 S o. 2 d 3 80 (Ala . Cri m . App . 19 99 ). O n M ar ch31, 200 0, the A la bam a Su pr em e Co urt de nie d c er

tio rari . E x parte Ca lla han , 767 So. 2d 40 5 (Ala . 2000). O n M ar ch29, 200 1, Ca llahan pe tit ion ed f or aw ri t of ha be as c or pus in the U nit ed S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt f or the N orthe rnD istri ct

of A la bam a. T w ic e the di st ric t co ur t g ran te d re li ef, an d t wice th is co ur t re ve rs ed . See Callaha n v. Haley , 313 F. Supp. 2d 1252 (N. D. Ala . 2004), va ca te d a nd rema nded

su b. n om. Ca lla han v. Ca m

pbe ll , 396 F . 3d 1 287 (1 1thCi r. 200 5) ; Ca lla han v. Ca m pbe ll , 427 F. 3d 89 7 (11th Cir. 2005). O n October 10, 2006 , the S uprem e Court denied Cal la ha n’s p et it io n fo r a wri t o f cer ti or ari on hi s h ab eas cla im s. Callaha n v. Allen , — U. S. —, 127 S. Ct. 427 (200 6). A t the ti m e Ca llahan w as se nte nc ed , A la bam a ex ec ute d in m at es by electrocution. O n July1, 2002, A labam a adopted lethal injection as its prefe rred fo rm of e xe cu tio n and g av e inm at es a lr ea dy on d eath r ow30 d ay s inw hic h to se le ct e le ctro cu tio n a s th e m ethod by w hic h th ey

w oul d di e. C al lahan di d no t op t out of the ne wpr oto co l, and the re fo re be cam e subj ec t t o de ath by le tha l i nj ec tio n on July 31, 200 2.Two day s later, Ala bama Gove rnor B ob Riley g rante d a 45-da

y repr ieve to anothe r 2 condemne d prisoner, Thoma s Arthur, to allow the A labama D epar tment of Correc tions to review its le tha l in

je c tio n p ro toc ol. 5 On Oc t o b er1 1 , 2 0 0 6 , o n e d ay af t erth e S up re m e C o u rt d en i edCa l l ah an ’s re que st f or c er tio rari on the de nia l of

his f ed er al ha be as pe tit ion , Ca llahan f

ile d a co m pla int und er 42 U . S. C. § 19 83, a lle gin g A la bam a’ s le tha l i nj ec tio n pr oto co l violates his Eighth Am endm ent right to be free f rom cruel and un usual puni shm ent. Appellants m oved for summ ary j udgm ent, c ontend ing th e claim wa s barred by the statute of lim itations and Callahan had failed to adduce evidence fr om w hic h ar at ion al tr ie r of

f ac t c oul d c onc lud e A la

bam a’ s m ethod of

e xe cu tio n vio la te s hi s c onst itu tio na l r igh ts. I n a ddi tio n, Appe llants ur ge d th e co urt t o f ind the law sui t e qui ta

bly barr ed be ca use of Ca llahan’ s de lay

in fi lin g it . A ft er

de ny ing Appellants’ m otion for sum m ary j udgm ent in its entirety , the district court set tria l fo r O ct obe r 3, 200 7. O n S ep te m

be r 25, 200 7, e igh t day s be fo re the tr ia l w as slate d to be gin , Alabam a announced it would be reviewing its execution p rotocol. T hat sam e date, the U nit ed

S ta te s S upr em e Co urt gr an te d c er tio rari in Baze v. Re es , — U . S. —, 128 S. Ct . 34 ( Se pt. 25, 200 7) , ac as e br ough t by ade ath r owinm at e ra isi ng a ch al le nge to K en tuc ky ’ s ne ar ly ide nti ca l l etha l i nj ec tio n pr oto co l. 2On the same day , the Alaba ma Supreme Court a lso set a new e x ecution date for 3 Thomas Arthur. See su

pr a , n.1. 6 Inthe m ids t of

the se e ve nts , the dis tr ic t c ourt de te rm ine d it w as pr ude nt t o co nti nue the c as e, de spi te the part ie s’ r ea din es s f or tr ia l. O n O ct obe r 26, 200 7, the St at e fi le d it s r ev ise d le tha l i nj ec tio n pr oto co l, w hic h di ff er ed onl y m ini m al ly

f ro m p r i o r p r o c e du r e s . F i v e d a ys l a t e r , o n O c t o b e r 3 1 , 2 0 0 7 , th e A l ab a maS up r e me Co urt se t C al lahan’ s e xe cu tio n date f or January 31, 200 8. 3 Ca llahan m ove d f

or astay of e xe cu tio n, arg uin g hi s c la im w as ti m el y br ough t and h ad

asig nif ic an t po ssi bil ity

of suc ce ss. T he dis tr ic t c ourt a gr ee d, and granted the stay . Appellants now ask this court to findthe entry of a stay wa s an ab use of dis cr et ion . II. A NA LY SIS Whe n ac ap ita l de fe ndant s ee ks t o c ha lle nge on c onst itu tio na l gr ound s th e m ethod by

w hic h he w ill be e xe cu te d, c ourts m ust ba lanc e the c om

pe tin g in te re sts of the de fe ndant and the S ta te . Ade fe ndant’ s in te re st i n be ing f re e fr om c ru el and unus ua l punis hm en t i s pr im ar y ; ho w ev er , the S ta te ’ s in te re st i n e ff ec tuatin g it s jud gm en t re m ai ns si gn ifi can t. Ne lso n v . Ca m pbe ll , 541 U . S. 637 , 644 , 124 S . Ct . 2117 , 212 3 ( 2004 ) (“ St at e re ta ins asig nif ic an t i nte re st i n m et ing out ase nte nc e of de ath inati m el y

f as hio n” ). T he S upr em e Co urt ha s r ep eate dly a dm oni she d c ourts7

re gard ing the ir

obl igatio n to guard

a ga ins t l iti ga tio n br ough t so le ly f or the pur pose of de la y . H ill v . M cD onough , 547 U . S. —, 126 S . Ct . 209 6, 210 3 ( 2006 ) (n oti ng

“ courts shou ld not tolerate a busiv e litigation tactics” in constituti onal tort cases ch al le ngi ng m ethods of

e xe cu tio n) . C ourts h av e giv enspe ci al a tte nti on t o th e tim el ine ss o f m ethod of

e xe cu tio n c ha lle nge s br ough t un de r 42 U . S. C. § 19 83. Co urts a sse ssi ng the ti m el ine ss o f a § 19 83 m ethod of e xe cu tio n c ha lle nge m ay do so in either of tw o way s. T he first is to ask whether the a ction has been tim ely brought under the applicable statute of lim itations . The sec ond in volv es an equitable inq uiry

that arises w hen a prisoner requests a stay of execution in order to f ull y li tig at e his c onst itu tio na l c la im . I n th e la tte r ci rc um stanc e, c ourts a sk w he the r the li tig an t “unr ea sona bly de lay ed ” be fo re f

ili ng h is c la im

and s houl d th eref or e b e b arre d fr om

rai si ng hi s ch al le ng e o n t he ev e o f ex ecu ti on . Whil e ac know le dgi ng the e xis te nc e of astatut e of

li m itatio ns f

or § 19 83 claim s, our prior ca ses addressing m ethod of execution challenges have focused ex cl usi ve ly

on the se co nd i nqui ry , e m plo y ing an e qui ta

ble ana ly sis to de te rm ine w he the r a ca

pit al li tig an t’ s c ha lle nge ha s be enbr ough t t oo l at e to w ar rant a stay of ex ecu ti on . Se e, e . g. , Sc hw ab v . Se c. , D ep ’t of Co rr. , 507 F . 3d 1 297, 130 1 ( 11th Ci r. 200 7) . W e have y et

to de te rm ine howthe r el ev an t st at ute of li m itatio nsUnder near ly identical cir cumstance s, J ones ra ised a c laim identical to the one 4 Callahan bring s here . We found J ones had unr easona bly delayed in bring ing his § 1983 c ha lle ng e e ve n th ou g h h e fi le d it wh ile his pe tit ion

fo r a wr it o f c e rt ior ari on

the de nia l of

his habea s petition was still pendingin the United States Supreme Court. Jones , 485 F.3d at 638. B y c o n tr a s t , C a l l ah anf

i l e d h i s § 1 9 8 3 c h a l l e n g e a

d ay afte r his petition for cer tiorari wa s denied. 8 ap pli es to inm at es w ho w ishto br ing a§ 19 83 c ha lle nge to the m ethod of the ir ex ecu ti on , bec au se th e que st io n h as no t b een pl aced sq ua rel y be fo re u s. In Jones v. Allen , 485 F . 3d 6 35 ( 11th C ir . 200 7) , w e af fi rm ed on e qui ta ble gr ound s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of astay of e xe cu tio n inac as e cl ose ly analogou s to this one. A lthou gh we took note of the dist rict court’ s finding that 4 the claim wa s not barred by

the statute of lim itations , w e did not review that de ci si on be cau se th e Gov ern m en t h adno t cr os s- ap pe al ed . Id . a t 63 8 n. 1. W e have de al t si m ilarl y

w ithoth er

c as es , a ll of

w hic h in vol ve d a

ppe al s by ade fe ndant, rat he r th an by the Gov ern m en t. Se e, e . g. , W illiams v. A llen , 496 F . 3d 1 210, 121 5 n .2 (1 1 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 7 ) ( “ Be ca u s e w e a ff i rm on eq u i t ab l e g ro u n d s th e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s jud gm en t d is m is si ng W il li am s’s ch al le ng e to th e St at e’s m et ho d o f ex ecu ti on , we ne ed not a ddr es s th e St at e’ s a lte rn at ive arg um en t tha t W ill iam s’ s su it is b ar re d by the statut e of

li m itatio ns. ”) ; Grayson v. A llen , 491 F. 3d 13 18, 1326 n .5 (11th Cir. 2007 ). T he re is a cl ose c onne ct ionin thi s c as e be tw ee n th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n to i m pose astay

and i ts f ind ing that C al lahan’ s c la im w as ti m el y

f ile d. I n gr an tin g9

Callahan’ s request for a stay , the district court properly engaged in a traditional equi tabl e an al y si s, co ns id eri ng , am on g o th er t hi ng s, wh et he r Cal la ha n h adsh own

“ a si gn ifi can t p os si bi li ty of su cces s o n t he m eri ts ” o f hi s § 19 83 cla im . Se e H ill , 547 U . S. a t — , 126 S . Ct . a t 21 04. T he dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed Ca llahan m ad e the req ui redsh owi ng . W e re vie wthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of pr el im inary

inj unc tiv e re lie f fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Se e G ray son , 491 F . 3d at 13 19 ( ap ply ing abuse of dis cr et ion standard to re vie wde nia l of

stay in § 19 83 a ct ion ). I t w oul d be “ a para dig m at ic ab use of dis cr et ionf

or ac ourt t o ba se it s j udgm en t onan e rr one ous vie wof the law, ” Sc hlu

p v . D elo , 51 3 U.S. 2 98 , 33 3, 1 15 S. Ct. 8 51 , 87 0 (1 99 5) (O’Con no r, J., co nc ur ri ng) , and the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n w oul d be e rr one ous if w e w er e to fin d t he cla im

ba rredby the st atut e o f li m it at io ns , as Ap pe ll an ts co nt en d i t was . A ll co nst itu tio na l c la im s br ough t un de r § 19 83 are tor t a ct ion s, sub

j ec t t o the statut e of

li m itatio ns g ove rn ing pe rs ona l i nj ur y a ct ion s inthe state w he re the § 1 98 3 a ct io n h as be en bro ug ht . W ils on v . G arc ia , 471 U. S. 261, 275-76, 105 S. Ct . 193 8, 194 6- 47 ( 1985 ). C al lahan’ s c la im w as br ough t i n A la

bam a, w he re the gove rn ing li m itatio ns p er iod is tw o y ears . A la . Co de § 6- 2- 38; Jo nes v . Pre uit & M auldin , 876 F . 2d 1 480, 148 3 ( 11th C ir . 198 9) ( enbanc ). T he re fo re , in or de r to10

have his c la im

he ar d, Ca llahan w as r equir ed to br ing it

w ith in tw o y ears f

ro m the da te th e li m it at io ns pe rio d b eg an to run . It ha s lo ng b ee n th e lawof thi s C ir cu it that i n § 1 983 ac tio ns “ the statut e of lim itatio ns d oe s no t be ginto run un til the f ac ts whic h w oul d su

ppor t a c au se of ac tio n are appare nt o r shou ld b e ap pare nt t o ape rs on w ithar ea sona bly pr ude nt regard f or his rights .” Mullinax v. M cE lhenney , 817 F. 2d 71 1, 716 (11th Cir. 1987 ) (internal quotations o m itted). W hat does that m ean as applied to a capital lit igant s ee kin g in

j unc tiv e re lie f fo r aninj ur y that ha s no t y et

oc curr ed , but

c anbe reas on ab ly ant ic ip at ed ? The q ue st io n i s o ne of f irs t i m pr es si on in th is Cir cu it . T he re are a t l ea st f

our pot en tia lly

via ble da te s onw hic h C al lahan’ s c la im co uld a cc ru e: ( 1) O ct obe r 1, 199 0, the da te his de ath se nte nc e be cam e fi na l; (2 ) Jul y 31, 200 2, the da te on whic h it be cam e cl ear Ca llahan w oul d di e by Alabam a’ s lethal injec tion p rotocol (rather than by any other m ethod); ( 3 ) O c t o b e r

1 0 , 2 0 0 6 , th e d a t e th e d e n i a l o f h i s f e d e r a l h ab e a s p e t i t i o n b e c a me fi na l; an d ( 4) the day

of his e xe cu tio n, w he n th e ult im at e inj ur y w ill oc cur. I t i s well est ab li sh edth ata fed eral cla im accrue s wh en th e p ro sp ect iv e p la in ti ff “ kn ows or has rea son to know of the injur y which is the basis of the action.” Co rn v . Ci ty of Lauderd

ale Lakes , 904 F . 2d 5 85, 588 ( 11th C ir . 199 0) . Appl y ing that pr inc ipl e to the facts of this case, we rej ect exec ution and the com pletion of feder al habeas11

re vie wa s th e poi nts f

ro m w hic h to m ea sur e the li m itatio ns p er iod in a m ethod of ex ec uti on c ha lle nge . W e hol d am ethod of e xe cu tio n c la im

a cc ru es on the late r of the da te on whic h st at e re vie wis co m ple te , or the da te on whic h th e ca pit al li tig an t be co m es sub

j ec t t o ane wor

sub stanti al ly

c hange d e xe cu tio n pr oto co l. F or the re as ons se t f

orth b el ow , w e co nc lud e Ca llahan’ s c la im a cc ru ed on July 31, 200 2, w he n he se le ct ed

le tha l i nj ec tio n a s th e m ethod by w hic h he w oul d be e xe cu te d. A . D ate of E

xe cu tio n T he dis tr ic t c ourt he ld C al lahan’ s c la im c oul d no t a cc ru e unt il the m om en t of execution because the statute of lim itations could no t “ attach to an act that has y et to oc cur an d ator

t tha t i s no t y et

c om ple te . ” D ist . Ct . O rd er

da te d N ov. 16, 2007 , dkt . # 14 6, a t 9- 10. See also Grayson v. A llen , 499 F . S upp. 2d 1 228, 123 5 (M . D . A la . 200 7) ; Jones v. Allen , 48 3 F . Sup p. 2 d 1 14 2, 1 15 3 (M .D. Ala. 20 07 ). Alt ho ug h we a gr ee wi th th e g en eral pri nc ip le reci te d b y th e d is tri ctco ur t, we dis ag re e w ithit s a

ppl ic at ionto ca se s su cha s th is o ne , w he re the ult im at e inj ur y is reas on ab ly lik el y

an d wh ol ly fores eeab le . Inar ec en t c ha lle nge to the law fu lne ss o f de te nti on b ro ught und er § 19 83, the Suprem e Court explained accr ual under the statute of lim itations “ occurs when the plaintiff has a com

plete and present cause of ac tion, that is, w hen the plainti ff can file suit and obtain relief. ” W allac e v. Ka to , — U . S. —, 127 S . Ct . 109 1, 109 512

(2 007) ( int er

na l qu otatio ns o m itt ed ). I t i s c le ar ac ap ita l l iti gant m ay

f ile sui t and obt ai n in j unc tiv e re lie f lon g be fo re he is ex ec ute d. T he re fo re , it is dif fi cu lt to reconcile W

allace w iththe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s ho ldi ng tha t the li m itatio ns p er iod w oul d no t be ginto run un til a ft er the li tig ant ha s di ed

( at w hic h ti m e the c la im wou ldbe si m

ul ta ne ou sl y

m oo te d) . Cf

. Co oe y v. Str ic kland , 479 F . 3d 4 12, 418 (6 th C ir . 200 7) ( not ing pr obl em s w ithse le ct ing da te of e xe cu tio n a s date of accrua l i n m et ho d o f ex ecu ti on cla im s) . Mor eo ve r, to hol d th e lim itatio ns p er iod doe s no t be ginto run un til the m om ent of death would be inconsis tent with the m anner in which w e have tre ated other § 198 3 claim s seeking pros pective relief , such as those involv ing challenges to p ar ole e lig ibi lity . F or

e xam ple , in Lo ve tt v. R ay , 327 F. 3d 11 81 (11th Cir. 2003 ), w e dis m iss ed

a s ti m e barr ed

apr iso ne r’ s c om

pla int that a 199 8 c hange in pa ro le pro cedur e wou ldren de r hi m in el ig ib le forpa ro le co ns id erat io n i n 2 00 6. W e he ld the li tig an t “ kne w , or sho uld have kno w n, a ll of

the f ac ts n ec es sary

to pursue a cause of a ction” in 19 98, but non etheless waited bey ond th e tw o y ear li m it at io n p eri odbe fo re fi li ng hi s cl ai m . Id. at 1182. De spite the fact the plaintiff wa s seeking pros pective relief against a future inj ury , w e held the claim wa s un ti m el y . Id. at11 83 . See also Brown v. Ge orgia Bd. of Pardons & Paroles , 335 F. 3d 1 259, 126 1 ( 11th C ir . 200 3) ( re ite ratin g st at ute of li m itatio ns b eg ins to run13

fr om da te f ac ts whic h w oul d su

ppor t c au se of a ct ionsho uld

be appare nt t o pe rs on with rea sonablyprudent regard for his rights). Fo r the se r ea sons , w e co nc lud e de at h is not the m om en t f

ro m w hic h to me a s u r e th e a c c r

u a l o f th e l i mi t a t i o n s p e r i o df

o r me t h o d - o f

- e x e c u t i o n c l a i ms brough t under § 198 3, and w e turn to the second op tion, the date on which feder al habe as rev ie w end s. B. Completion of Federal H abeas Review Ca llahan f

ile d th is l aw sui t on e day

a ft er the S upr em e Co urt de nie d hi s pe tit ionf or r ev ie wof

the de nia l of

his f ed er al ha be as pe tit ion . W er e w e to co nc lud e the de nia l of

c er tio rari is the m om en t f

ro m w hic h to m ea sur e the lim itations period, Ca llahan’ s com plaint would b e tim ely . W e do not, however, ad opt the c om ple tio n of ha be as r ev ie wa s th e m om en t of a cc ru al be ca

use doi ng s o w oul d pr olo ng unne ce ssari ly the ti m e dur ing w hic h ali tig an t sh oul d r ea sona bly anticipate the need to file suit and would fail to sho w proper respect f or principles of fed eral is m . Re spe ct f or the e qua lity

and i nde pe nde nc e of

state c ourts i s ac or

ne rs ton e of our judicial sy stem . Under w ell-established principl es of fe deralism , f ederal co urts o pe rate w ith in14

a sy ste m in w hic h th er e is s en sit ivi ty to the le git im at e int er es ts o f both State and National Governm ents, and in which the N ational Governm ent, anxio us tho ugh it m ay be to vind icate and protect f e d e r a l r i g h t s an df

e d e r a l i n t e r e s t s , a l w a ys e n d e a v o r s t o d o s o i n wa ys that w ill not

und uly int er fe re w iththe le git im at e ac tiv iti es of the St at es . Younge r v . H

arr is , 401 U . S. 37, 44, 91 S . Ct . 746 , 750 -5 1 ( 1971 ). T he se pr in ci pl es ap pl y

wit h s pe ci al for ce i n m at te rs of c riminal law. M cC lesk eyv . Z ant , 499 U.S . 467, 491, 111 S. Ct. 1454 , 1469 (1991) (“ Our f ederal sy stem

rec ogni zes th e in de pe nd en t p owe r of a St at e to art ic ul at e so ci et al no rm s t hr ou gh cri m in al law; but th e power

of a S tate to pass laws m eans little if the State cannot enforce the m . ”) . F ed er al r ev ie wof state c ourt j udgm en ts, w hil e anim portant c he ck

on poss ibl e co nst itu tio na l a

buse s, sho uld

be c ar ri ed out in a tim el y

f as hio n to pr ev en t un ne ces sa ry

in te rfer en ce wi th a st at e’s au th or it y . In co ns id eri ng when a m et ho d- of -ex ecu ti on cla im

accrue s u nd er § 19 83 , we ar e es pe ci al ly

m ind fu l of

the A nti te rr or ism

and E ff ec tiv e D eath P en al ty

A ct of 1996 ( A E D PA ), w hic h C ongr es s pa sse d “ to r ed uc e de lay s inthe e xe cu tio n of state an d f ed er al c ri m ina l se nte nc es , part ic ularl y in ca pit al c as es , . . . and t o f

urthe r the principles of com ity , f

inality , and federalism ” by curtailing the abilityof feder al habe as co ur ts to rev ie w st at e co ur t ju dg m en ts . W oodf ord v. G arc ea u , 538 U. S. 202, 206 , 123 S . Ct . 139 8, 140 1 ( 2003 ) (i nte rn al quo ta tio ns o m itt ed ). A lth oughI t is no t c le ar why Al a bama a ba nd on e d it s st and ard

pr oc e dure in t

his c a se , w a iti nguntil 5 we ll a ft e r C a lla

ha n’ s f e de ra l ha be a s r e vie w w a s f

ini sh e d b e fo re a sk ingthe Al a bama Sup re me Court to set the date of his e x ecution. It may have be en mer e for

tuity . 15 m ethod- of

-e xe cu tio n c ha lle nge s br ough t un de r § 19 83 are not gov er ne d by AE DP A, they

do “ fall at the m argins of habeas,” Ne lso n , 541 U . S. a t 64 6, 124 S. Ct . a t 21 24; Cooey , 479 F . 3d at 42 1, and the re fo re im pli cate m any

of the sam e com ity

concerns A ED PAwa s design ed to address. T hese concerns counsel aw ay from setting th e m om ent of acc rual at the end of fe deral habeas r eview, since doi ng s o w oul d pr ovi de c ap ita l de fe ndants w itham eans o f de lay ing e xe cu tio n ev en aft er t he ir s en te nc es ha ve be en fou ndlawf ul by bot h s ta te an d fe de ral co ur ts . A s an e xam

ple , c onsi de r the S ta te of A la bam a. I t i s w el l kn ow n inthi s Circuit that “ it is comm on practice for the State to ask the A labam a Suprem e Court to set an execution date for a death-r ow inm ate shortly after the United State s Suprem e Court has denied certiorar i reviewof the petitioner’ s federa l habeas petition ,” W

il li ams , 496 F . 3d at 12 13, w hic h a s “ a m atte r of c om m on se ns e . . . eli m in at es th e la stpo ss ib le ob st acl e to ex ecu ti on ,” Jones , 485 F. 3d at 639- 40 n . 2. W er e w e to h old a§ 19 83 m ethod- of

-e xe cu tio n c ha lle nge a cc ru es on 5 the date feder al habeas re view ends, we would effe ctively provide capital defendants with a veto power over the state’ s ability to effe ctuate its j udgm ent at th e cl os e o f fed eral habe as rev ie w. Cf . T hom pson v . W

ain wr igh t , 714 F . 2d 1 495,16

1506 ( 11th C ir . 198 3) ( “ E ac h de lay , f or it s sp an , is a co m

m utatio n of ade ath sentence to one of im

prisonm ent.”) . Furthe rm or e, in pinpoi nti ng the m om en t a § 19 83 c la im

a cc ru es , w e re m ai n m indful of ou r own e quityj urisprudence. A lthou gh the Suprem e Court has sanc tio ne d th e fi lin g of

§ 19 83 c la im s c ha lle ngi ng the c onst itu tio na lity of ex ec uti on m ethods , the Co urt ha s e m pha siz ed that the a va ila

bil ity of § 19 83 lit igatio n do es not

dim ini sh the int er es t of

state s and c ri m e vic tim s “ in the ti m el y en fo rc em en t of

ase nte nc e, ” an d do es not “ de pr ive f

ed er al c ourts o f the m eans t o pr ot ect ” th atin te res t. H ill , 547 U . S. a t — , 126 S . Ct . a t 21 04 ( “ [F ] ed er al c ourts can and s houl d pr ote ct

S ta te s f ro m dil at or y or spe cu la tiv e sui ts. ”) . T o pr ote ct thi s int er es t, c ourts a

ppl y astr ong equit ab le pr es um pti on a ga ins t a

stay of e xe cu tio n

“ w he re ac la im

c oul d have be enbr ough t at su chati m e as to al lowc onsi de ratio n of the m erits w ithou t requiring entry of a stay .” Ne lso n , 541 U . S. a t 65 0, 124 S . Ct . at 212 6; Sc hw ab , 50 7 F .3dat 1 30 1. Fo llo w ing that r ea soni ng, w e have sug ge ste d ac ap ita l l iti gant b ri ngi ng a § 19 83 c la im

in A la bam a can f

or es ee his c om

pla int w ill be unt im el y

if he w ai ts t o fil e it un ti l t he co m

pl et io n o f fed eral co ll at eral rev ie w. Jones , 485 F . 3d at 63 9- 40 n. 2 ( “ W ai tin g to f

ile sui t un til the S upr em e Co urt ha s de nie d c er tio rari r ev ie wof aninm at e’ s f

ed er al ha be as pe tit ion. . . is sim

ply too late to av oid

the ine vit ab le17

ne ed f or astay of e xe cu tio n. ”) . I f w e w er e to h old the li m itatio ns p er iod

be gin s to run w he n f

ed er al ha be as r ev ie we nds, c la im s whic h have j ust a cc ru ed und er the Alab am a st atut e o f li m it at io ns wou ldalwa y s b e u nt im el y as a m at te r of

equi ty. Su ch a ru le wou ldbe in de fen si bl e, an d we d ecl in e to ad op t i t. C. D ate D ea th S

en te nc e B ec am e F

ina l T he ne xt p oss ibl e ac cr

ua l date is the day

on whic h ali tig an t’ s de ath se nte nc e be co m es f

ina l f oll ow ing dir ec t a

ppe al . O rd inari ly , thi s is the da te on w hic h ac ap ita l de fe ndant’ s § 1 983 ch al le nge to the m ethod of his e xe cu tio n w ill ac cr ue be ca use it is the da te by

w hic h th e re le vant f

ac ts ( i.e. , the m anne r an d ce rt ai nty of e xe cu tio n un de r state law ) shou ld b e ap pare nt t o ape rs on w itha reas on ab ly pru de nt reg ardforhi s ri gh ts . Se e M ull ina x , 81 7 F .2dat 7 16 . A cc ord Cooey , 479 F . 3d at 42 1- 22 ( fi ndi ng c om ple tio n of dir ec t r ev ie wappr opr ia te m om ent from

which to m easure a ccrual) ; Ne vi llev . J ohns on , 440 F . 3d 2 21, 222 (5th Cir. 2006 ) (“ A c hallenge to a m ethod of execution m ay be filed any

tim e af ter the plaintiff’ s convictio n has becom e final on direct r eview. ”). T he re are se ve ra l r ea sons w hy the c om ple tio n of state r ev ie ww ill or din ar ily tr igg er the statut e of

li m itatio ns f

or ac ha lle nge to the m ethod of e xe cu tio n. F ir st, by requiring a defendant to wait to bring a claim after direct re view is com

plete (as oppo se d, say , to w he n th e se nte nc e is f ir st i m pose d) , w e en sur e cl ai m s are not18

br ough t pr em at

ur el y , be fo re state c ourts h av e ha d an a de quate opp ortun ity to co rr ec t any

inf irm iti es in the de fe ndant’ s c onvi ct ionor se nte nc e. S ec ond, by req ui rin g acla im

to be bro ug ht wit hi n t wo years o f th e co m pl et io n o f st at e rev ie w, w e guarante e de fe ndants ’ c onst itu tio na l c ha lle nge s to the m ethod of the ir ex ec uti on c anbe f

ull y a dj udi cate d and at the sam e tim e pr ote ct state s f ro m unne ce ssary

int er fe re nc e in c ar

ry ing out the ir j udgm en ts. F ina lly , se le ct ing the com pletion of direct a

ppeal as the m om ent a § 1983 claim accr ues has the added be ne fi t of m ir ro ri ng the ti m e at

w hic h ade fe ndant’ s ha

be as li m itatio ns p er iod be gi ns to run , see 28 U . S. C. § 22 44( d) (1 )( A ), the re by sim pli fy ing the post co nvi ct ionla

by ri nthof f ili ng d ea dli ne s th ro ugh w hic h c ap ita l l iti gants m ust na vi ga te . Ca llahan’ s c onvi ct ionbe cam e fi na l i n 19 90, six te eny ears be fo re thi s c as e w as f ile d. N ev er

the le ss, the statut e of

li m itatio ns w as not

tr igg er ed by the com pletion of state re view in this case beca use, at that tim e, Ala

bam a had not y et adopted lethal in

j ection as a form

of execution. Until it becam e clear that lethal inj ec tio n w as the m ethod by w hic h he w oul d di e, Ca llahan la ck ed a“ co m ple te and present cause of a ction,” W allace , 12 7 S . Ct. at10 95 , andhi s cl ai m di d n ot accrue . W e turn, ther efore, to the final propos ed triggering date: July31, 2002, the day Cal la ha n s el ect edlet ha l i njec ti on as t he m ean s b y whi ch he wil l d ie .19

D . D ate theE

xe cu tio n Protoc ol B ec am e A ppl ic abl e to C

allahan A s w e re co gni ze d in Jones , t h e A l ab ama Le g i s l at u re ch an g edth e S t at e’s pr ef er re d m ethod of

e xe cu tio n f

ro m e le ctro cu tio n to le tha l i nj ec tio n inJul y 200 2. 485 F.3d at 637. Curre nt death row inm ates, includi ng Jon es and Callahan, we re giv en30 d ay s inw hic h to c hoos e el ec tr oc uti on a s th e m eans b y w hic h th ey

w oul d pr eferto di e. Id

. A n y i n ma t e s w h o h a dn o ts e l e c t e de l e c t r o c u t i o n b y t h a tt i me wou ldbe su bjec t t o d eat h b y let ha l i njec ti on . Id

. (ci ti ng Ala. Co de § 1 5- 18 -8 2.1 (2 006 Cum

ulativ e Su

pp. )) . B y f ai lin g to c hoos e el ec tr oc uti on b y Jul y 31, 200 2, Ca llahan c hose to die by

le tha l i nj ec tio n. A lth ough Jones wa s decided on equi table ground s, w e noted Jon es’ lethal inj ec tio n c ha lle nge r ipe ne d inJul y 200 2, w he n it

be cam e cl ear he w oul d be ex ec ute d by

le tha l i nj ec tio n: W e see no convincing rea son why , a fter A labam a m ade lethal inj ec tio n it s pr im ar

y m ethod of

e xe cu tio n, Jon es c oul d no t have brough t his m ethod-of-execution challenge soo ner than he did. Jones knew of the S tate’ s intentio n to execute him at least by

July 2002 . “ It wa s during that period—in which the execution was not so m uch an im m ine nt o r im

pe ndi ng d an ge r as it

w as an e ve nt r ea sona

bly li ke ly to occur in the future—that Jones needed to file this challeng e. ” Id . a t 64 0 ( quot ing H

arr is v . J ohns on , 376 F. 3d 41 4, 418 (5th Cir. 2004)). T here is n o do ubt

Ca llahan, too , w as f

re e to c ha lle nge the m ethod of his e xe cu tio n be gin nin g Ju ly

31, 200 2, by

w hic h ti m e the f

ac ts whic h w oul d su

ppor t a c au se ofTh e dis se nt n ote s A la bama ’s e xec uti on

pr oto c ol i s su

bje c t to c ha

ng e . A lth ou g h th at is 6 tru e, n ei th er

p arty s u gges t s th e l et h al i n

j ec t i o np ro t o co l h as un d er go n e any m at er i al ch an ge be tw e e n 2 00 2 a

nd the pr e se nt. 20 action shou ld have been apparent to any person with a re asonablyprudent regard fo r his r igh ts. M

ull ina x , 817 F . 2d at 71 6. T he statut e of li m itatio ns b eg anto run 6 at that t im e; the re fo re , abse nt a sig nif ic an t c hange in the state ’ s e xe cu tio n pr oto co l (whic h di d no t oc cur in this c as e) , Ca llahan w as r equir ed to fi le his E igh th A m en dm en t c ha lle nge by Jul y 31, 200 4—m or e than tw o y ears be fo re his co m pla int w as f ile d. U ngui de d by

astate m en t of

thi s C ir cu it’ s po sit ionon the r el ev an t st at ute of lim itations , it is understandable why the court (and the parties) plac ed m ore em pha sis on the m er its of

Ca llahan’ s E igh th A m en dm en t c ha lle nge and the equities of the stay

than on th e threshhold q uestion of w hether the com plaint was ba rredby the st atut e o f li m it at io ns . Never th el es s, i n l ig ht of o urho ld in g t od ay , we co nc lud e the dis tr ic t c ourt a buse d it s di sc re tio n by

de te rm ini ng C al lahan ha d a sig nif ic an t po ssi bil ity

of suc ce ss o n th e m er its of

his c la im w he n, in fa ct , the co m pl ai nt was fi le d b ey on d t he ap pl ic ab le two -y ear s ta tu te of l im it at io ns . Co nse que ntl y , the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r stay ing the e xe cu tio n is VACATED.21

W IL SO N , Ci rc uit

Jud ge , dis se nti ng: I w oul d a ff

irm the e ntr y of the stay ba se d onthe r at ion al e ar tic ulate d by Judg e G ilm anin his dis se nt i n Co oe y v. Str ic kland , 47 9 F .3d41 2 (6 th Cir . 20 07 ). Inm y vie w , am ethod- of

-e xe cu tio n c ha lle nge br ough t un de r § 19 83 d oe s no t ac cr ue unt il the pr iso ne r know s or ha s r ea son to k

nowthe f ac ts g ivi ng r ise to his cl ai m an d t he pri so ne r’s ex ecu ti on be co m es imm in en t. Se e id. at 4 26 (Gil m an , J., dis se nti ng) . F or

a cc ru al pur

pose s, the e xe cu tio n be co m es im m ine nt whe n th e pr iso ne r ha s e xhaust ed

a ll of his state and f

ed er al c ha lle nge s to the va lid ity of the se nt en ce. Se e id. I f

i n dth i s ap p r o a c h p r e f

e r ab l e t o th a ta d o p t e db y th e maj o r i t y, which ef fectively requires a death-sentenced prisoner to file a m ethod-ofex ec uti on c la im

y ears be fo re his e xe cu tio n is to take pla ce , dur ing w hic h ti m e the ch al le nge d pr oto co l c oul d be m at er ia lly c hange d. A cc or din gly , I r es pe ct fu lly dis se nt. A s th e m aj or ity

c or re ct ly not es , it is w el l e sta

bli she d th at

af ed er al c la im accr ues when the prospective plaintiff “ knows or has reason to kno w of the injury which is the basis of the action.” Corn v. City of Lauderd ale Lakes , 904 F . 2d 5 85, 588 (1 1thCi r. 199 0) . T he m aj or ity hol ds tha t the f

ac ts s uppo rt ing Ca llahan’ s § 1983 a ct ionw er e or

sho uld have be enappare nt t o hi m on July 31, 200 2, w he n th e 30- day pe ri od w ith in whic h he c oul d c hoos e el ec tr oc uti on a s hi s m eans o f22

ex ec uti on e xpi re d. I be lie ve that this c onc lus ionm isc onstru es the na tur e of the inj ur y that C al lahan se ek s to e nj oin . C al lahan’ s § 1 983 ac tio n is not ba se d onthe fact of his death sentence or even on the fact that he is to be executed by lethal inj ec tio n. R athe r, Ca llahan is a sse rt ing that the spe ci fi c le tha l i nj ec tio n pr oto co l pr es en tly e m plo y ed by A la bam a is l ike ly

to ca use him und ue pa in and s uf

fe ri ng w he n hi s e xe cu tio n is c ar ri ed out . T his c la im

c oul d have be gun to a cc ru e onl y ( 1) when Ca llahan knew or had re ason to kn ow the details of A labam a’ s lethal inj ec tio n pr oto co l and ( 2) w he n hi s e xe cu tio n be cam e im m ine nt. Contrary to the m aj ority ’ s conclusio n, neither of these circum stances existed in July of 200 2. A lth oughA la

bam a ad opt ed

le tha l i nj ec tio n a s it s so le m ethod of ex ec uti on at tha t t im e, it s sp ec if ic pr oto co l i s ne ith er

f ixe d by lawnor r ea dil y ac ce ssi ble . T he pr oto co l i s ac re at ur e of r eg ulatio n, not

statut e, and thus it is subj ec t t o c hange a t any

ti m e by the A la bam a D ep ar

tm en t of Co rr ec tio ns. A s is the case in other states, “ [n] o statuto ry fram ew ork determ ines when or how such changes m ay

occur. N or is there a fram ew ork governin g when, or even if, such changes will be publicized.” Co oe y v. Str ic kland , 479 F. 3d 41 2, 427 (6th Cir. 2007 ) (G ilm an , J. , dis se nti ng) . I nde ed , it appe ar s th at

A la bam a ha s r ev ise d th e pr oto co l onanum

be r of pr ev iou s oc ca sio ns, and the re is re as on t o be lie ve that i ts effo rts to pro m

ul ga te th es e ch an ge s h av e b een in ad equa te . See Jones v. Allen , 483Alabama most rece ntly

revised its lethal injec tion protocol on October 26, 2007. 1 23 F. S upp. 2d 1 142, 114 6 n. 2 ( M. D . A la . 200 7) ( not ing that A la bam a de fe ndants

“ adm itt ed that e ar lie r re vis ion s to the pr oto co l w er e m ad e . . . but that a ft er dil ige nt search they

[w ere] unable to locate the version of the proto col that existed before s u c h c h a n g e s w e r e ma d e ” ) . A d d i n g t o th i s u n c e rt a i n ty, th e S t a t e o f A l ab a ma ke ep s t he sp eci fic s o f it s l et ha l i njec ti on pro to co l a s ecre t. Siebert v. A llen , 200 7 W L 304 7086 , a t *1 ( M. D . A la . O ct . 17, 200 7) . I t h u s ca n n o tac ce p tth e majo ri t y’ s co nc lus ionthat C al lahan’ s c au se of a ct ionbe gan to a cc ru e fi ve y ears be fo re his ex ec uti on d at e w as se t, dur ing w hic h ti m e A la bam a co uld , and i n f

ac t di d, a m en d its le tha l i nj ec tio n pr oto co l. 1 A better approach w ouldbe to fix the date of ac crual when Callahan knew or ha d r ea son to k

nowthe de ta ils of

the pr oto co l t o be use d inhis e xe cu tio n and w he n hi s ha

be as c ha lle nge to his se nte nc e w as e xhaust ed . P la ci ng the a cc ru al da te af te r the c om

ple tio n of ha be as pr oc ee din gs w oul d have “pr ovi de [d ] c lari ty and ce rt ai nty to both th e de ath- se nte nc ed inm at e an d th e St at e that the se nte nc e [w as ] fi na l and n ot s usc ep tib le to atta ck , that the e xe cu tio n date [ w as ] se t, and tha t the protocol for [the] execution [wa s] likely fixed.” Cooey , 479 F . 3d at 42 9 ( G ilm an , J. , dis se nti ng) . Mo re ove r, in fu tur e ca se s, thi s a ppr oa chw oul d avoi d th e pr obl em at ic out co m es that the m aj or ity ’ s de ci sio n w ill pr oduc e: that de ath-I t is noteworthy that in Jones v . Allen , 483 F. Supp. 2d 1142 (M.D. Ala . 2007), the 2 court re cognized that accor ding to g ener al tort principles, “ ‘the statute [of limitations ] does not usually beg in to run until t he tort is complete,’ ” and a “‘tort is ordinar ily

not complete until there has bee n an invasion of a leg ally protec ted intere st of the plaintiff.’” Id . at 11 48 (a lte ra tio ns in orig inal) (quotingRest. 2d Torts § 899 cmt. c). As suc h, wher e a de fenda nt challeng es the constitutionalit y

of an e vent that has not yet occ urre d, i.e., the method of e x ecution, the statute of lim itatio ns inq

uir y is n ot a pp lic a ble ; r athe r, on ly

e qu ita ble c on sid e ra

tio ns (s uc h a s th os e associate d with comity , finality , fede ralism, and lac hes) a re r eleva nt. Id . at 1149-51. 24 sentenced prisoners will be required to pursue m ethod-of-execution challenges several y ears prior to their e xecutions and during the sam e tim e they are ch al le ngi ng the ir

c onvi ct ion s and s en te nc es on h ab ea s. 2 Fi na lly , the m aj or ity

e xpr es se s th e co nc er

n th at pla ci ng the a cc ru al da te af te r the c om

ple tio n of ha be as pr oc ee din gs w oul d e nable pr iso ne rs to “ ve to” the state ’ s a bil ity to ef fe ct ua te it s j udgm en ts b y

unr ea sona

bly de lay ing the ir

§ 19 83 a c t i o n s . Ho w e v e r , th e S up r e me C o u rth a s r e c o g n i z e dth a tp r i s o n e r s s e e k i n g s t a ys of e xe cu tio n m

ust e sta bli sh a sig nif ic an t l ike lih ood of

suc ce ss o n th e m er its , inc lud ing ove rc om ing apr es um pti on a ga ins t e ntr

y of astay w he re the c la im

c oul d ha ve be en bro ug ht earl ie r. Ne lso n v . Ca m pbe ll , 541 U . S. 637 , 650 , 124 S . Ct . 2117 , 158 L . E d. 2d 9 24 ( 2004 ). I n m y vie w , the re fo re , the m aj or ity ’ s c onc er n in this regard is unpersuasiv e. Fo r the se r ea sons , I r es pe ct fu lly dis se nt.