Arthur v. Thomas
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6006
| 11th Cir. | 2012Background
- Thomas D. Arthur, an Alabama death-row inmate, challenged Alabama's three-drug lethal injection protocol after its 2011 switch to pentobarbital as the first drug.
- Arthur alleged pentobarbital takes longer to render loss of consciousness, creating substantial risk of a painful execution before the second and third drugs are administered.
- He asserted violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments (cruel and unusual punishment, due process secrecy) and Alabama constitutional separation of powers.
- The district court dismissed the Eighth Amendment and Due Process claims as time-barred under Alabama's two-year § 1983 statute of limitations and dismissed the Equal Protection claim for failure to state a claim, declining supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim.
- Arthur's complaint included expert declarations and eyewitness accounts (Powell/Blankenship executions) suggesting procedural deviations and risks with pentobarbital.
- The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded on the Equal Protection claim, holding the pleadings plausible at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, while dissenting on the majority's approach to prior precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pentobarbital substitution is a significant change restarting the statute of limitations | Arthur argues the change restarted limitations for §1983 claims. | Alabama contends substitution is not a significant change. | Not a significant change; limitations not restarted. |
| Whether Arthur's Eighth Amendment claim is timely and ripe for dismissal at pleadings | Arthur contends timely because a significant change occurred. | State argues time-bar applies per Powell/Valle line. | Eighth Amendment claim time-barred based on binding precedent. |
| Whether Arthur's Due Process claim relating to secrecy is timely | Secrecy of protocol revived timely challenge. | Clock restarted or not; governed by prior sealing/notice rulings. | Due Process claim time-barred under prior precedent. |
| Whether Arthur's Equal Protection claim should be dismissed at pleadings or remanded for discovery | Alleged substantial deviation from protocol plausibly burdens rights. | ||
| Allegations are speculative and insufficient to state a claim. | Reversed and remanded for further factual development. |
Key Cases Cited
- Powell v. Thomas, 643 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2011) (pentobarbital substitution not a significant change for statute of limitations)
- Powell (Williams) v. Thomas, 641 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2011) (same conclusion on significant change; notice claims not restarting clock)
- DeYoung v. Owens, 646 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2011) (evidence on pentobarbital not showing substantial change; decision on limitations)
- Valle v. Singer, 655 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir. 2011) (Florida's pentobarbital substitution not a significant change; claims rejected)