Geoffrey West v. Commissioner, Alabama DOC
869 F.3d 1289
11th Cir.2017Background
- Alabama uses a three-drug lethal-injection protocol (sedative, paralytic, potassium chloride); midazolam replaced pentobarbital as the first drug in 2014.
- Four death-row inmates (appellants) filed § 1983 suits (2016) claiming the protocol using midazolam creates a substantial risk of severe pain in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
- Plaintiffs allege midazolam is a sedative (not an analgesic) that can mask consciousness checks while not preventing pain from the paralytic and potassium chloride; they proposed three single-drug alternatives (sodium thiopental, compounded pentobarbital, or a 500 mg midazolam bolus).
- The district court dismissed the complaints under Rule 12(b)(6) as time-barred, construing them as a "general challenge" to any three-drug protocol (accruing in 2002).
- The Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding the complaints plausibly alleged a specific challenge to Alabama's substitution of midazolam and satisfied Baze/Glossip pleading requirements, so dismissal was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaints state an Eighth Amendment method-of-execution claim under Baze/Glossip | Complaints sufficiently allege midazolam creates a substantial risk of severe harm and propose feasible alternatives | No merit beyond challenging three-drug protocols generally | Held for plaintiffs: pleadings, if true, satisfy Baze two-prong standard and survive 12(b)(6) |
| Whether the complaints are time-barred (accrual / statute of limitations) | Challenge accrues from the substitution of midazolam (2014), so suits filed in 2016 are timely | Claims are really a general attack on any three-drug protocol (accrued in 2002) and thus barred | Held for plaintiffs: complaints fairly read as specific to midazolam substitution and therefore not necessarily time-barred |
| Whether plaintiffs’ proposed single-drug alternatives transform a specific-drug challenge into a general challenge | Proposed alternatives satisfy Baze’s feasibility and risk-reduction prong; form (one- vs three-drug) is irrelevant | The use of single-drug alternatives demonstrates the real aim is to eliminate three-drug protocols generally | Held for plaintiffs: the number of drugs in alternatives does not convert a specific-drug challenge into a general one |
| Whether prior decisions in the consolidated "Midazolam Litigation" (Smith) bind this appeal under the law-of-the-case doctrine | Appellants are separate cases; Smith’s unpublished ruling does not bind or control these plaintiffs | Smith’s dismissal and this litigation’s consolidation make Smith controlling | Held for plaintiffs: law-of-the-case inapplicable; consolidation for discovery does not merge distinct cases and Smith was not binding precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (plurality) (establishes two-prong standard for Eighth Amendment method-of-execution claims)
- Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. 863 (clarifies Baze standard and burden for identifying feasible, readily implemented alternatives)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference and risk-of-harm framework referenced in Baze)
- Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993) (defining "substantial risk" concept referenced in Baze)
- McNair v. Allen, 515 F.3d 1168 (11th Cir. 2008) (accrual rule for method-of-execution claims; accrual on new or substantially changed protocol)
- Gissendaner v. Comm’r, Ga. Dept. of Corr., 779 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2015) (substantial-change inquiry for protocol accrual)
- Powell v. Thomas, 643 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2011) (cites Alabama’s earlier protocol changes)
- Brooks v. Warden, 810 F.3d 812 (11th Cir. 2016) (discusses midazolam substitution and protocol ingredients)