In re Lombardi
2014 WL 308055
8th Cir.2014Background
- Respondents petitioned for rehearing and to vacate the court’s opinion on mootness grounds in Zink v. Lombardi, No. 2:12-cv-04209 (W.D. Mo. filed Aug. 1, 2012).
- Court evaluated whether the case was moot at the time of the opinion because the testing laboratory and compounding pharmacy identities became public via media/inference.
- Disputed discovery sought by respondents: identities of prescribing physician, compounding pharmacy, and testing laboratory.
- District court challenges included Eighth Amendment and Ex Post Facto Clause arguments related to the method of execution using propofol and later compounded pentobarbital.
- Court addressed whether the grounds for mandamus relief were properly presented to the district court and whether the complaint alleged sufficient Eighth Amendment facts and state-law considerations.
- Questioning whether the court misread Baze v. Rees and Hill v. McDonough in evaluating the Eighth Amendment claim and whether state-law claims about compounding-pharmacy drugs were properly analyzed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness at time of decision | Zink argued identities were known via media | Lombardi asserted live controversy remained | Not moot at issuance |
| Adequacy of grounds for mandamus | Grounds adequately presented to district court | Grounds not properly raised in appeal | Grounds adequately presented |
| Eighth Amendment claim framework | Alleged substantial risk with current method | Hill v. McDonough permits no specific pleading of alternatives | Need not identify an alternative; plaintiffs failed to state claim under Baze framework |
| Relevance of pharmacy/lab identities to state-law claims | Identities may affect legality of compounding-pharmacy drug use | Identities not relevant to state-law claims as pleaded | Identities not plainly relevant to state-law claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (U.S. 2008) (Eighth Amendment feasibility/alternative analysis guidance)
- Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573 (U.S. 2006) (no requirement to plead an alternative method to proceed)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standards; plausibility review)