Adams v. Bradshaw
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14683
6th Cir.2011Background
- Adams, a death-row inmate in Ohio, challenges Ohio's lethal-injection procedures as potentially violating the Eighth Amendment.
- The Sixth Circuit remanded for factual development of Adams's lethal-injection claim.
- Warden Bradshaw moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Hill v. McDonough, arguing habeas is unavailable and §1983 controls.
- District court denied the motion; the Warden sought interlocutory review. 2 The district court and this court recognize Hill and Nelson but distinguish Adams's claim as potentially rendering the death sentence invalid if successful.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Adams's lethal-injection claim is cognizable in habeas corpus or under §1983 | Adams's claim could render the death sentence invalid, thus habeas should apply | Hill holds many method challenges are §1983, not habeas | Not resolved here; court distinguishes Adams's claim and allows habeas consideration |
| Whether Hill and Nelson foreclose jurisdiction in this case | Hill/Nelson do not categorically bar habeas for method challenges | Hill/Hill-based reasoning limits habeas for these claims | Hill/Nelson do not bar habeas jurisdiction under these facts; remand affirmed |
| Whether the district court properly denied dismissal and should remand | District court should proceed to develop factual record | Remand was appropriate to assess jurisdictional question | Affirmed denial of dismissal; remanded to district court in accordance with prior order |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573 (2006) (death-row method-of-execution challenges; not per se barred from §1983, but context matters)
- Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637 (2004) (method-of-execution challenges may fall at the margins of habeas)
- Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973) (habeas corpus as the exclusive remedy for challenges to confinement)
- Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749 (2004) (per curiam; confinement challenges inform scope of habeas vs. 1983)
- Nelson v. Campbell (cited for concept), 541 U.S. 637 (2004) (contextual note on categorization of method-of-execution claims)
- Terrell v. United States, 564 F.3d 442 (2009) ( Sixth Circuit note on categorization of habeas vs. 1983)