Opinion ID: 2283707
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the relief sought by petitioners in this court.

Text: The Petitioners ask this Court for a writ to  dismiss the underlying declaratory judgment action now pending in the Franklin Circuit Court;  prohibit the Franklin Circuit Court from entering any orders concerning matters already determined by the Kenton Circuit Court or that are pending before this Court; and  issue an order superseding and dissolving the temporary injunction that stayed Gregory Wilson's execution. The Commonwealth clearly requests extraordinary relief in the form of a writ under Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 76.36 and Ky. Const. § 110(2)(a) from the temporary injunction issued by the Franklin Circuit Court; but the Commonwealth also invokes CR 65.07, which is nominated as pertaining to Interlocutory relief in Court of Appeals prior to final judgment, apparently as a precautionary measure. Although CR 65.07 expressly provides that a party affected by entry of a temporary injunctionsuch as that at issue heremay seek relief in the Court of Appeals, [9] this rule does not expressly allow such relief from this Court. The Commonwealth argues that the instant action is still proper in this Court primarily because the parties seeking relief below are death-row inmates seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the state's death-penalty protocols. The Real Parties in Interest (death-row inmates including Wilson) [10] do not take issue with this action being filed in this Court, but the Real Parties in Interest argue that the Commonwealth may not seek a writ for relief from the temporary injunction. They contend that the normal standard of review for a temporary injunction under CR 65.07 should apply rather than the standard for determining availability of a writ, which they contend to be an easier standard to meet. But the Commonwealth requests extraordinary relief beyond merely dissolving the temporary injunctionthe Commonwealth asks us to order the Franklin Circuit Court to dismiss the declaratory judgment action and order that court to desist from entering orders pertaining to matters decided by or pending before this Court or the Kenton Circuit Court. So we will construe the instant action as a writ petition rather than as a CR 65.07 motion, although we also review the granting of the temporary injunction under CR 65.07 standards in order fully to address the Commonwealth's concerns that the temporary injunction was improperly entered. Because we decline to issue a writ in the instant action, we also decline to hold that an attempt to vacate a stay of execution must always be filed and reviewed as a petition for extraordinary relief under CR 76.36 or as a motion for interlocutory relief from a temporary injunction under CR 65.07. We recognize that the Petitioners urge this Court to hold that a writ action is an appropriate vehicle for challenging a stay of execution, but we decline to do so in this case because resolution of that issue is not necessary to decide this case. Furthermore, we decline the Petitioners' invitation to adopt standards from federal cases for assessing writ actions concerning stays of execution because Kentucky case law has established standards for assessing writ actions.