Cook v. Brewer
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6753
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Cook appeals district court dismissal of his second §1983 claim alleging Arizona's planned use of imported non-FDA–approved sodium thiopental in his execution violates the Eighth Amendment.
- The Ninth Circuit previously upheld the district court’s denial of Cook’s first §1983 complaint on the same claim.
- The second complaint adds four new factual allegations about efficacy, animal-use manufacturing, handling in three U.S. executions, and unlawful importation.
- The court reviews de novo under Iqbal and Twombly to determine if the claim is facially plausible.
- The district court dismissed; the Ninth Circuit affirms, finding the new allegations do not render the claim facially plausible.
- Arizona’s safeguards—post-drug unconsciousness confirmation and medical team verification—undercut claims of likely pain from the drug
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do Cook’s four new allegations render the claim facially plausible? | Cook. | Brewer/Arizona. | No; allegations remain non-speculative and not plausibly indicative of serious pain. |
| Does animal-use manufacturing or efficacy concerns create a plausible risk of needless suffering? | Cook. | Arizona. | No; insufficient facts to show drug will cause unconstitutional pain. |
| Do prior U.S. executions with observed open eyes imply risk or pain from the drug? | Cook. | Arizona. | No; no medical basis to infer drug-related pain from eye-open observations. |
| Should the case be remanded to address unlawful importation claims? | Cook. | Arizona. | No; import legality not at issue inこの appeal; focus remains on use legality. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleading after Twombly)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (requires facial plausibility to survive Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (U.S. 2008) (requires showing of risk that is sure or very likely to cause needless suffering)
- Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1993) (premises that risk of future serious harm can support Eighth Amendment claim)
- Dickens v. Brewer, 631 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2011) (acknowledges safeguards confirming unconsciousness after drug administration)
- Cook v. Brewer, 637 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2011) (previous decision addressing same core claim and standards)