Christopher Brooks v. Warden
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 860
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Christopher Brooks, a Alabama death-row inmate, sought to intervene in a consolidated § 1983 challenge (the "Midazolam Litigation") to Alabama’s three-drug lethal-injection protocol (midazolam, rocuronium bromide, potassium chloride) after the State set an execution date for him.
- Brooks intervened on November 2, 2015 and moved for an emergency stay of execution; his execution was scheduled for January 21, 2016. The district court denied the stay on December 22, 2015.
- Brooks alleged midazolam would not sufficiently anesthetize him and thus the three-drug protocol presented a substantial risk of severe pain in violation of the Eighth Amendment. He proposed three single-drug alternatives: pentobarbital, sodium thiopental, or midazolam alone.
- The district court found Brooks failed to show (1) a feasible, readily implementable, and currently available alternative that significantly reduces risk of severe pain (Glossip standard) and (2) that his challenge was timely under the two-year statute of limitations; it also found Brooks unreasonably delayed, weighing equities against a stay.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, reviewing the stay denial for abuse of discretion and concluding Brooks failed to show substantial likelihood of success on the merits, was time-barred, and had forfeited equitable relief by delay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brooks showed substantial likelihood of success that Alabama’s three-drug protocol creates a demonstrated risk of severe pain and that known alternatives are materially safer | Brooks: midazolam may not anesthetize adequately; single-drug alternatives (pentobarbital, sodium thiopental, midazolam alone) are feasible and safer | ADOC: the Glossip-approved three-drug protocol is not shown to create demonstrated risk; plaintiff must prove alternatives are feasible and currently available | Held: Brooks failed to show alternatives are known, readily available, and significantly safer; no substantial likelihood of success on merits. |
| Availability of proposed alternatives (pentobarbital, sodium thiopental, midazolam-only) | Brooks: other states' use or procurement shows availability; midazolam is available to ADOC | ADOC: no reliable source for pentobarbital or sodium thiopental; news reports and filings show procurement barriers; midazolam-only protocol untested and may be non-lethal | Held: Evidence insufficient to show pentobarbital/thiopental are readily available to ADOC; midazolam-only is untested and not shown to be a feasible, safer alternative. |
| Timeliness — whether Brooks’ method-of-execution claim was time-barred under the two-year statute of limitations | Brooks: 2014 substitution of midazolam was a substantial change that reset the limitations period | ADOC: Alabama has used a three-drug protocol since 2002; substitution of first drug does not substantially alter method of execution | Held: Claim accrued earlier; Brooks failed to show the 2014 switch was a “substantial change” that reset the limitations clock; claim likely time-barred. |
| Equitable relief/stay given delay | Brooks: delay excused because others litigated protocol; state at fault for litigation scheduling | ADOC: Brooks unreasonably delayed after his habeas cert. denial and could have intervened earlier; state and victims have interest in finality | Held: District court did not clearly err in finding unreasonable delay; strong equitable presumption against stay; equities weigh against Brooks. |
Key Cases Cited
- Glossip v. Gross, 135 S. Ct. 2726 (2015) (condemned prisoner must show state protocol creates demonstrated risk of severe pain and that feasible, readily implemented alternatives significantly reduce that risk)
- Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008) (plurality) (method-of-execution challenge requires showing an objectively intolerable risk of severe pain)
- Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573 (2006) (equitable presumption against stay where claim could have been brought earlier; sensitivity to state’s interest in timely enforcement)
- Powell v. Thomas, 641 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2011) (standard of review and stay-of-execution factors)
- Grayson v. Allen, 491 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2007) (delay in filing method-of-execution suits affects equitable relief)
- Gissendaner v. Comm’r, Ga. Dep’t of Corr., 779 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2015) (what constitutes a "substantial change" resetting accrual for method-of-execution claims)
- McNair v. Allen, 515 F.3d 1168 (11th Cir. 2008) (accrual rule for method-of-execution claims)