The U.S. Supreme Court grant­ed a stay of exe­cu­tion to Clarence Hill in Florida just min­utes before his exe­cu­tion was to take place on January 24. The next day, the Court made the stay per­ma­nent until they could hear Hill’s chal­lenge to the lethal injec­tion pro­ce­dures in Florida. Hill raised a civ­il rights claim (sec­tion 1983) stat­ing that the chem­i­cals used in lethal injec­tion could inflict severe and unnec­es­sary pain. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit reject­ed his use of the civ­il rights law and required that his claim be con­sid­ered as part of his reg­u­lar (habeas cor­pus) death penal­ty appeal. They then reject­ed the claim.

The U.S. Supreme Court has grant­ed cer­tio­rari and has ordered that brief­in­gs be com­plet­ed by April 17. In an ear­li­er case, Nelson v. Campbell (2004), chal­leng­ing parts of the lethal injec­tion pro­ce­dures in Alabama, the Court allowed the inmate to pro­ceed with his civ­il rights claim. 

The two ques­tions the Court agreed to hear are:

“1. Whether a com­plaint brought under 42 USC Sec. 1983 by a death-sen­tenced state pris­on­er, who seeks to stay his exe­cu­tion in order to pur­sue a chal­lenge to the chem­i­cals uti­lized for car­ry­ing out the exe­cu­tion, is prop­er­ly rechar­ac­ter­ized as a habeas cor­pus peti­tion under 28 USC Sec. 2254?

“2. Whether, under this Court’s deci­sion in Nelson, a chal­lenge to a par­tic­u­lar pro­to­col the State plans to use dur­ing the exe­cu­tion process con­sti­tutes a cog­niz­able claim under 42 USC Sec. 1983?”

The case is Hill v. Crosby, No. 05 – 8794. (See Associated Press; Lyle Denniston on SCOTUSBLOG, Jan. 25, 2006). See also Methods of Execution and Supreme Court.

Citation Guide