Opinion ID: 2745692
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Challenge to Ohio’s Lethal-Injection Regime

Text: Finally, Frazier contends that Ohio’s administration of the death penalty is unconstitutional. The Ohio Supreme Court summarily rejected this claim on the merits, and the district court denied Frazier’s petition. Frazier admits that the United States Supreme Court, in Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008), held that execution by lethal injection is not per se unconstitutional, but he contends that “the implementation of the method of execution could implicate the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.” Pet’r Br. at 67. In his briefing on appeal, Frazier does not offer an argument on the merits of his Eighth Amendment claim; instead, he asks us to “remand this case back to the district court to permit Frazier to join in the lethal injection litigation at the district court level or await the result of Judge Katz’ findings in Case No. 1:03-cv-1192.” Pet’r Br. at 68. At oral argument, Frazier’s counsel notified our panel that Frazier is a party to an ongoing action, filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging Ohio’s lethal-injection regime. See Docket, In re Ohio Execution Protocol Litigation, Case No. 2:11-CV-01016-GLF-MRA (S.D. Ohio) (Frost, J.). We think that that litigation is the proper avenue for Frazier to bring this constitutional challenge. As we stated in Scott v. Houk, --- F.3d ---, 2014 WL 3702438 (6th Cir. July 28, 2014), “in order to obtain relief from his sentence, [Frazier] would first have to gather facts showing that Ohio is unable to administer lethal injection in a constitutionally permissible manner. And this is precisely the type of discovery that [Frazier] can pursue in his § 1983 litigation.” Id. at . Therefore, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of Frazier’s petition on this claim.