In re Ohio Execution Protocol Litigation, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3518

Charles Lorraine, a death-row inmate, sought a TRO and preliminary injunction to stay his January 2012 Ohio execution date.
Lorraine's equal protection claim alleges that Ohio’s execution protocol and discretionary practices create arbitrary, unequal treatment among inmates.
The court had previously scrutinized Brooks and Smith decisions, noting prior deviations from the protocol and their attempted cures.
Lorraine challenges non-core deviations at SOCF and contends the Director must approve non-core deviations; past rulings required conformity with the protocol and centralized approval.
The court finds that Ohio’s prior assurances of compliance have been undermined by unapproved deviations and mismanagement, justifying injunctive relief against proceeding with Lorraine’s execution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lorraine shows likelihood of success on the merits of his equal protection claim.	Lorraine: protocol deviations burden fundamental rights/unconstitutionally irrational.	Ohio: deviations are acceptable if minor or approved; protocol is being followed in substance.	Lorraine shows substantial likelihood of success on the equal protection claim.
Whether non-core deviations, if not approved by the Director, render the protocol unconstitutional.	Deviations without Director approval undermine equal protection and procedural safeguards.	Non-core deviations can occur and be tolerated if implemented, even without explicit Director approval.	Non-core deviations require Director approval; repeated unapproved deviations violate the protocol.
Whether the Brooks-related assessment and contingency planning affect Lorriane's stay order.	Contingency plans and past assessment practices indicate ongoing protocol failures.	Brooks-related planning and assessments satisfied protocol requirements; contingency planning did not materialize as deviation.	Brooks-related issues do not defeat Lorriane's likelihood of success; overarching deviations remain central.

Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793 (U.S. 1997) (death penalty distinctions and rational basis related to equal protection)
Radvansky v. City of Olmsted Falls, 395 F.3d 291 (6th Cir. 2005) (class-of-one equal protection framework)
Warren v. City of Athens, 411 F.3d 697 (6th Cir. 2005) (rational basis scrutiny and burden on fundamental rights)
TriHealth, Inc. v. Board of Comm’rs, Hamilton County, Ohio, 430 F.3d 783 (6th Cir. 2005) (class-of-one and rational-basis considerations in public policy)
Club Italia Soccer & Sports Org., Inc. v. Charter Twp. of Shelby, Mich., 470 F.3d 286 (6th Cir. 2006) (equal protection and disparate treatment among similarly situated entities)
Does v. Munoz, 507 F.3d 961 (6th Cir. 2007) (fundamental rights and strict scrutiny considerations in equality challenges)
Miller v. City of Cincinnati, 622 F.3d 524 (6th Cir. 2010) (fundamental rights and rational basis in equal protection disputes)
Bonnell v. Lorenzo, 241 F.3d 800 (6th Cir. 2001) (irreparable injury and public interest considerations in preliminary injunctions)