Clayton v. Lombardi, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 4681

Cecil Clayton, a Missouri death-row inmate missing ~20% of his frontal lobe from a prior injury, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as‑applied Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment challenge to Missouri’s execution protocol.
Clayton alleges his brain injury makes him unable to make reasoned choices about pre‑execution sedatives (midazolam, diazepam/valium) and increases the risk of an atypical, agonizing reaction or difficulty obtaining IV access.
He submitted an expert declaration (Dr. Mark J.S. Heath) asserting that poorly compounded pentobarbital or underdosing could cause further brain damage, a torturous outcome, or a vegetative state.
The district court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as frivolous and failing to state an Eighth Amendment claim; Clayton appealed and moved for a stay of execution pending appeal.
The court of appeals majority denied the stay, concluding the dismissal aligned with its Zink precedent requiring more than a hypothetical risk of severe pain for an Eighth Amendment method‑of‑execution claim.
A dissenting judge would have granted a stay, emphasizing Clayton’s unrebutted medical evidence, the as‑applied nature of his claim, and Missouri’s lack of evidence disputing heightened risk from compounded pentobarbital.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a stay of execution should issue pending appeal	Clayton: unrebutted medical evidence shows a substantial, particularized risk of severe pain or torturous outcome given his brain injury	Missouri: Zink controls; plaintiffs must show a high likelihood of severe pain and Clayton’s allegations are hypothetical	Denied — stay denied by majority; plaintiff must show significant possibility of success on merits and more than a hypothetical risk
Whether Clayton stated a plausible as‑applied Eighth Amendment claim	Clayton: his unique brain damage plus drug effects create an objectively intolerable risk when protocol applied to him	Missouri: protocol has not produced unconstitutionally painful executions in healthy inmates; Clayton’s risk is speculative	Majority: district court dismissal consistent with Zink — complaint fails to plead the required substantial risk; dissent: as‑applied claim warranted further adjudication
Whether Zink governs Clayton’s as‑applied challenge	Clayton: his case is distinguishable because it alleges individualized risks from severe frontal‑lobe loss	Missouri: Zink is controlling precedent rejecting similar challenges	Majority: applied Zink; dismissed claim. Dissent: Zink did not resolve as‑applied challenges for severely impaired inmates and Bucklew is more relevant

Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573 (U.S. 2006) (stay of execution is an equitable remedy and challengers must show a significant possibility of success on the merits)
Zink v. Lombardi, 783 F.3d 1089 (8th Cir. 2015) (Eighth Amendment method‑of‑execution claims require more than a hypothetical risk; plaintiff must show an objectively intolerable risk of severe pain)
Bucklew v. Lombardi, 783 F.3d 1120 (8th Cir. 2015) (as‑applied Eighth Amendment challenges may survive dismissal and warrant further proceedings)