Clarence E. Hill v. James McDonough

Eleventh Circuit

Clarence E. Hill v. James McDonough

462 F.3d 1313, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 22082, 2006 WL 2472727

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedAugust 29, 2006

Docket06-10621

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 462 F.3d 1313 (Clarence E. Hill v. James McDonough) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Clarence E. Hill v. James McDonough, 462 F.3d 1313, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 22082, 2006 WL 2472727 (11th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Clarence E. Hill is a Florida death row inmate. On January 20, 2006, Hill brought this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to enjoin the State of Florida from carrying out his execution by lethal injection on January 24, 2006. He alleged that the State’s execution procedure constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments because the first drug to be injected, sodium pentothal, would not suffice as an anesthetic to render painless the administration of the second and third drugs that would cause his death. That is, he could remain conscious and suffer severe pain as the second drug paralyzed his lungs and the third drug caused cramping and a fatal heart attack.

The district court, relying on our decision in Robinson v. Crosby, 358 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir.2004), concluded that Hill’s § 1983 claim was the functional equivalent of a successive petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which this court had not authorized him to file, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), and therefore dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction. We affirmed. Hill v. Crosby, 437 F.3d 1084, 1085 (11th Cir.2006).

Hill petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. The Court granted the writ and stayed his execution pending its resolution of the case. Hill v. Crosby, 546 U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 1189, 1190, 163 L.Ed.2d 1144 (2006)(mem). Following oral argument, the Court held that Hill’s § 1983 claim could proceed, vacated our judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2096, 2102-04, 165 L.Ed.2d 44 (2006). Since, as the Supreme Court observed, “[t]he equities and the merits of Hill’s underlying action” have not been determined, id. at 2104, and because the district court is the appropriate forum for such determination, we vacate that *1314 court’s decision and remand the case for further proceedings.

SO ORDERED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Clarence E. Hill is a Florida death row inmate. On January 20, 2006, Hill brought this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to enjoin the State of Florida from carrying out his execution by lethal injection on January 24, 2006. He alleged that the State’s execution procedure constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments because the first drug to be injected, sodium pentothal, would not suffice as an anesthetic to render painless the administration of the second and third drugs that would cause his death. That is, he could remain conscious and suffer severe pain as the second drug paralyzed his lungs and the third drug caused cramping and a fatal heart attack.

The district court, relying on our decision in Robinson v. Crosby, 358 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir.2004), concluded that Hill’s § 1983 claim was the functional equivalent of a successive petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which this court had not authorized him to file, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), and therefore dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction. We affirmed. Hill v. Crosby, 437 F.3d 1084, 1085 (11th Cir.2006).

Hill petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. The Court granted the writ and stayed his execution pending its resolution of the case. Hill v. Crosby, 546 U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 1189, 1190, 163 L.Ed.2d 1144 (2006)(mem). Following oral argument, the Court held that Hill’s § 1983 claim could proceed, vacated our judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2096, 2102-04, 165 L.Ed.2d 44 (2006). Since, as the Supreme Court observed, “[t]he equities and the merits of Hill’s underlying action” have not been determined, id. at 2104, and because the district court is the appropriate forum for such determination, we vacate that *1314 court’s decision and remand the case for further proceedings.

SO ORDERED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

462 F.3d 1313, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 22082, 2006 WL 2472727, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clarence-e-hill-v-james-mcdonough-ca11-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack