Court Opinion

ID: 9576394
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:23:58.874495+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:06:51.097574
License: Public Domain

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I join in the conclusion that the district court correctly applied the rule announced by a majority of this panel in Cooey v. Strickland, 479 F.3d 412, 422 (6th Cir.2007) (Cooey II). That rule compels the conclusion that the statute of limitations has expired on Cooey’s current as-applied challenges under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as the district court carefully explained in its opinion. I write separately, however, to reiterate my belief that Cooey II was wrongly decided for the reasons articulated in my dissent to that opinion.
Borrowing statute-of-limitations principles from the law of habeas corpus and applying them to the wholly distinct body of law surrounding § 1983 challenges creates anomalous results. Section 1983 claims may well expire before they have properly ripened for careful review on the merits. Cooey’s case provides a perfect example of why this is so. The Supreme Court has made clear that details matter in assessing the constitutionality of a state’s lethal-injection method. See Baze v. Rees, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 1520, 1533-34, 170 L.Ed.2d 420 (2008) (plurality opinion) (discussing various safeguards employed by the state of Kentucky to ensure that adequate anesthesia is administered in advance of the lethal drugs that would otherwise cause extreme pain, including the professional qualifications of the IV team, extensive practice sessions, and the insertion of back-up TV lines). Because details in the procedure might interact with the medical condition of the specific condemned prisoner in constitutionally significant ways, and because the nature of these details may not be known when the prisoner’s state appeals are exhausted, I continue to believe that the Cooey II rule is erroneous and unjust. Cooey’s § 1983 challenges deserve a hearing on their merits. But because I am constrained by the precedential law of the case, I nonetheless concur.