Opinion ID: 625895
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Dismissal of Arthur's Complaint

Text: On August 15, 2011, the State moved to dismiss Arthur's complaint or, alternatively, for summary judgment. [8] The State argued, inter alia, that Arthur's complaint was barred by the statute of limitations and failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On November 3, 2011, the district court issued an order granting the State's motion to dismiss. The district court concluded that Arthur's Eighth Amendment and Due Process claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The district court explained that: (1) a two-year statute of limitations governed Arthur's § 1983 claims; (2) a method-of-execution claim accrues on the later of the date the inmate's state review is complete or the date on which the inmate becomes subject to a new or substantially changed execution protocol; (3) Arthur's claim accrued on July 31, 2002, when Alabama adopted lethal injection as its method of execution; (4) Eleventh Circuit precedent foreclosed Arthur's arguments that the switch from sodium thiopental to pentobarbital resulted in a new or substantially changed execution protocol; (5) Eleventh Circuit precedent also established that Arthur's Due Process claim about the secrecy of Alabama's protocol accrued on July 31, 2002; and (6) thus, Arthur brought his Eighth Amendment and Due Process claims nearly seven years after the limitations period expired. The district court dismissed Arthur's Equal Protection claim as to the ADOC's alleged failure to conduct a full consciousness check during the Powell execution for failure to state a claim. The district court reasoned that, even [a]ssuming that observation of the `pinch test' is constitutionally significant, Arthur's allegation, that ADOC's protocol was not followed in one execution, does not raise his right to relief above a speculative level. Arthur appealed. [9]