United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted May 3, 2007

Decided May 3, 2007

Before

Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

No. 07-2001

DAVID L. WOODS,

Intervener Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ED BUSS, Superintendent,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States 

District Court for the 

Southern District of Indiana,

Indianapolis Division.

No. 06 C 1859

Richard L. Young, Judge.

O R D E R

David Woods is scheduled to be executed by lethal injection on May 4, 2007 at

12:01 A.M. by the State of Indiana. He challenges Indiana’s method of lethal injection.

The district court denied Woods’ motion for a preliminary injunction and denied him

a stay of execution. We affirm the district court’s decision denying Woods’ motion for

preliminary injunction. We deny his request for a stay of execution.

I. HISTORY

On April 7, 1984, David Woods stabbed to death a 77 year-old man in order to

steal $130 in cash and a television that Woods later resold for $20. Woods v.

McBride, 430 F.3d 813, 815-16 (7th Cir. 2005). Woods was convicted of murder and

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 07-2001 Page 2

robbery and was sentenced to death. Id. at 816. His case proceeded through direct

and post-conviction review in the Indiana state courts and habeas review through

the federal courts. Woods v. McBride, 430 F.3d 813 (7th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 127

S. Ct. 391 (2006). Yesterday, we denied Woods’ request for a Certificate of

Appealability for a second habeas petition and refused his request for a Stay of

Execution. Woods v. Buss, 07-1951 (7th Cir. May 2, 2007). 

On March 5, 2007, Woods sought leave to intervene in a preexisting lawsuit

challenging Indiana’s lethal injection method. Timberlake v. Buss, 06-CV-1859

(S.D. Ind). Woods was granted leave to intervene on April 10, 2007, filed a

statement of claims on April 17, 2007 and filed a motion for a preliminary

injunction and stay of execution on April 18, 2007. On May 1, 2007, the district

court denied Woods’ motion for preliminary injunction and request for a stay of

execution.

II. ANALYSIS

“We review the denial of a preliminary injunction for an abuse of discretion.” 

Autotech Tech. Ltd. Partnership v. Automationdirect.com, 471 F.3d 745, 748 (7th

Cir. 2006) (citing Goodman v. Ill. Dep’t of Fin. & Prof’l Regulation, 430 F.3d 432,

437 (7th Cir. 2005)). In reviewing the district court’s decision, “we examine legal

conclusions de novo [and] finding of facts for clear error.” Joelner v. Village of

Washington Park, Illinois, 378 F.3d 613, 619-20 (7th Cir. 2004). “To prevail on a

motion for a preliminary injunction, the moving party must demonstrate (1) a

likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a lack of an adequate remedy at law; and (3)

an irreparable harm will result if the injunction is not granted. FoodComm Intern

v. Berry, 328 F.3d 300, 303 (7th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). If the moving party

meets the first three requirements, then the district court balances the relative

harms that could be caused to either party. Incredible Tech., Inc. v. Virtual Tech.,

Inc., 400 F.3d 1007, 1011 (7th Cir. 2005)).

The district court rejected Woods’ claims on two grounds. First, it held that

Woods had failed to demonstrate that Indiana’s lethal injection method violates the

Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Second, the

district court held that the last minute nature of Woods’ claims strongly counseled

against granting him relief. 

The Supreme Court has recognized that the prisoner may challenge the

means of his execution pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to determine whether the

method complies with constitutional requirements. Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S.

637, 644 (2004). “The unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain constitutes cruel

and unusual punishment forbidden by the Eighth Amendment.” Hope v. Pelzer, 536

U.S. 730, 737 (2002) (quotations and citations omitted). To succeed on an Eighth

Amendment claim, the plaintiff must demonstrate both that there is an objectively
No. 07-2001 Page 3

serious deprivation and the deprivation was done with deliberate indifference. 

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). 

In its May 1, 2007 decision, the district court determined that the individuals

responsible for Woods’ execution are sufficiently trained and experienced and are

governed by appropriate procedures to insure that there is not a “significant” or

“unnecessary risk that Woods will suffer unnecessary pain during the execution

process.” Dist. Ct. May 1, 2007 Op. at pg. 3. The district court also concluded that

“Woods’ allegations concerning deficiencies in the execution protocol are simply off

base.” Id. at pg. 9. Finally, the district court determined that Woods could not

demonstrate either a deprivation of his constitutional right to be free from

“unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,” nor deliberate indifference by the

defendants. Id. at pgs. 9-10.

We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding that

the execution of Woods pursuant to Indiana’s lethal injection method does not

violate Woods’ constitutional rights. The district court properly considered the

applicable law governing the Eighth Amendment and properly applied it to

Indiana’s lethal injection method. We adopt the reasoning of the district court’s

decision of May 1, 2007 as our own. 

We are also particularly mindful of the fact that Woods is pursuing this

additional “eleventh hour” attempt to delay his execution. “A court may consider

the last-minute nature of an application to stay execution in deciding whether to

grant relief. ... [T]here is a strong equitable presumption against the grant of a stay

where a claim could have been brought at such a time as to allow consideration of

the merits without requiring entry of a stay.” Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637,

649 (2004). 

III. CONCLUSION

The district court’s decision denying Woods’ motion for preliminary

injunction is AFFIRMED. Woods’ application for a Stay of Execution is DENIED.