DeYoung v. Owens
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15794
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Georgia death-row inmate DeYoung challenged the state's lethal injection protocol as cruel and unusual punishment and as violating equal protection via §1983.
- Georgia's protocol involves three drugs in sequence: pentobarbital, pancuronium bromide, and potassium chloride, with consciousness checks before the second drug.
- The district court granted the state's dismissal, finding accrual in 2001 and treating May 13, 2011 protocol change as not a substantial alteration; it denied TRO/stay.
- On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit denied a stay, holding the claims time-barred or, if timely, failing on the merits.
- The court analyzed Eighth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment challenges and concluded no substantial risk of serious harm or disparate treatment warranted relief.
- The relevant limitations period began October 5, 2001, and expired eight years before DeYoung filed his §1983 action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the §1983 claim time-barred by the statute of limitations? | DeYoung contends the 2011 protocol change re-set limitations. | The change did not constitute a substantial alteration; accrual occurred in 2001. | Yes; limitations bar the claim. |
| Does pentobarbital pose a substantial risk of serious harm under the Eighth Amendment? | Pentobarbital is insufficiently tested and may cause pain or failure to render unconscious. | Pentobarbital adequately renders unconsciousness; evidence shows no substantial harm. | No; no substantial risk shown. |
| Does the written protocol's level of detail violate equal protection due to deviations? | DeYoung asserts gaps cause disparate treatment among inmates. | Deviations enhance safeguards and are rational under a legitimate state interest. | No; deviations rationally related to safeguarding executions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Powell v. Thomas, 641 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2011) (stay standard and merits analysis in §1983 capital punishment challenges)
- Powell (Williams), 641 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2011) (rejection of protocol change as substantial alteration for limitations purposes)
- Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (U.S. 2008) (objective risk of harm standard for cruel and unusual punishment)
- Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2001) (mere proffering additional reasons does not reopen reconsideration)
- McNair v. Allen, 515 F.3d 1168 (11th Cir. 2008) (two-year limitations period accrues when protocol is changed or review completes)
- Amnesty Int'l, USA v. Battle, 559 F.3d 1170 (11th Cir. 2009) (equal protection and rational-basis scrutiny in procedural contexts)