Hines v. Johnson

Fifth Circuit

Hines v. Johnson

133 F. App'x 145

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 3, 2005

Docket03-21173

StatusUnpublished

This text of 133 F. App'x 145 (Hines v. Johnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hines v. Johnson, 133 F. App'x 145 (5th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM: *

Appellant Bobby Lee Hines has been convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death by the Texas State Courts for the brutal murder of Michelle Wendy Haupt. Mr Hines filed the instant lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments challenging the constitutionality of Texas’s execution protocol. The district court dismissed Hines’ action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. This court affirmed. The Supreme Court, however, vacated the judgment and remanded the case for consideration in light of Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 124 S.Ct. 2117, 158 L.Ed.2d 924 (2004). We have reconsidered the case in light of Nelson and subsequent circuit precedent. After doing so we conclude that our judgment affirming the district court’s decree should be reinstated on the alternate grounds established in Aldrich v. Johnson, 388 F.3d 159 (5th Cir.2004). For the alternate reasons assigned, the original judg *146 ment of the court affirming the district court’s judgment is reinstated.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

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

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM: *

Appellant Bobby Lee Hines has been convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death by the Texas State Courts for the brutal murder of Michelle Wendy Haupt. Mr Hines filed the instant lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments challenging the constitutionality of Texas’s execution protocol. The district court dismissed Hines’ action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. This court affirmed. The Supreme Court, however, vacated the judgment and remanded the case for consideration in light of Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 124 S.Ct. 2117, 158 L.Ed.2d 924 (2004). We have reconsidered the case in light of Nelson and subsequent circuit precedent. After doing so we conclude that our judgment affirming the district court’s decree should be reinstated on the alternate grounds established in Aldrich v. Johnson, 388 F.3d 159 (5th Cir.2004). For the alternate reasons assigned, the original judg *146 ment of the court affirming the district court’s judgment is reinstated.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 F. App'x 145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hines-v-johnson-ca5-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack