906 F. Supp. 2d 759
S.D. Ohio2012Background
- Hartman moves for stay of execution, TRO, and preliminary injunction in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case challenging Ohio’s execution protocol; court has previously denied similar stays in Wiles, Lorraine, and Brooks proceedings and notes Ohio’s historical noncompliance but recently adopted Incident Command System (ICS) under Director Mohr to improve process; Webb/Palmer/Wiles line of proceedings informs Hartman’s challenge; court conducts an evidentiary hearing and denies relief based on likelihood of success on the merits; decision emphasizes Hartman failed to prove Ohio cannot be trusted under new facts; the order restates that the constitutionality of Ohio’s protocol is not conclusively decided and denies relief.
- Court notes Ohio’s execution protocol is written to be constitutional but historically inconsistently implemented; ICS implemented as a corrective measure; court’s focus is whether Hartman is substantially likely to prove unconstitutionality.
- The Wiles and Palmer executions are cited as part of the evidentiary landscape informing whether new evidence changes the court’s assessment; Hartman’s briefing is criticized for withholding new evidence and for “Constitutional Whack-a-Mole” behavior.
- Court reviews Hartman’s Equal Protection theory, including class-of-one arguments and fundamental-right analysis, but finds no strong likelihood of success on the merits in light of the record.
- Court ultimately denies Hartman’s motion for a TRO and preliminary injunction and indicates it will not micromanage Ohio’s execution process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood of success on merits | Hartman argues equal protection violation from protocol deviations | Ohio argues no fundamental-right burden; rational basis suffices | Denied: no strong likelihood of success on the merits |
| Class-of-one equal protection claim | Hartman asserts treatment differs from similarly situated inmates without rational basis | Discretion and past deviations do not establish a class-of-one violation | Denied: no viable class-of-one claim |
| New Wiles/Palmer evidence impact | New executions and ICS-related changes show ongoing noncompliance | ICS and leadership changes address concerns; not probative of unconstitutionality | Denied: new evidence not persuasive to alter result |
| First Amendment last-words provision | Discretion to terminate last words burdens speech rights | Regulation reasonable; Turner standard applies | Denied: regulation reasonable under Turner; not controlling |
| Effect of ICS and core components | Non-core deviations and misinterpretation threaten protocol integrity | Mohr’s leadership and ICS ensure adherence; deviations are reforms | Denied: record shows constitutional compliance and managerial improvement |
Key Cases Cited
- Towery v. Brewer, 672 F.3d 650 (9th Cir.2012) (equal protection under class-of-one requires intentional differential treatment or rational basis review)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1987) (prison regulations valid if reasonable related to legitimate penological interests)
- Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817 (U.S. 1974) (First Amendment rights in prison are subject to lesser scrutiny)
- Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (U.S. 1989) (prison regulations scrutinized for security considerations and alternatives)
- Murgia v. Mass. Bd. of Retirement, 427 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1976) (rational basis review where rights are not implicated)
- Green v. City of Olmsted Falls, 395 F.3d 291 (6th Cir.2005) (class-of-one rational basis framework in equal protection)