Jackson v. Danberg
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18557
| 3rd Cir. | 2011Background
- Jackson, on behalf of a death-row class, challenged Delaware's lethal-injection protocol under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- Delaware amended its protocol in 2008 to a three-drug sequence: sodium thiopental, pancuronium bromide, and potassium chloride, with consciousness checks.
- A 2011 amendment added pentobarbital as an alternative first drug due to sodium thiopental shortages.
- The District Court granted summary judgment upholding the 2008 protocol and denied stay of execution.
- Plaintiffs sought to reopen under Rule 60(b)(6) and 60(d) and to stay Jackson's execution; the District Court denied both.
- We reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed the denial of both the stay and the motion to reopen.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pentobarbital in the protocol creates a demonstrated risk of severe pain. | Jackson argues pentobarbital is unapproved as an anesthetic and inadequately unconsciousens inmates. | Danberg maintains pentobarbital adequately anesthetizes and is consistent with Eighth Amendment standards. | Denial affirmed: no demonstrated risk; pentobarbital deemed an effective anesthetic. |
| Whether Delaware's substitution of pentobarbital undermines prior Jackson I ruling. | Jackson contends the change destabilizes the basis of the prior decision. | Delaware argues the Baze framework permits changes without independent action. | Denied: substitution does not undermine prior ruling under Rule 60. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a stay pending appeal. | Plaintiffs asserted likelihood of success on merits and substantial risk of harm. | Defendants argued no substantial risk and procedural safeguards mitigate risk. | Affirmed: no substantial likelihood of success shown. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying 60(b)(6) relief and 60(d) independent action. | Pentobarbital substitution constitutes extraordinary circumstance justifying relief. | Substitution does not undermine the foundation of the prior decision; no grave miscarriage. | Affirmed: no abuse; no extraordinary or independent-action basis shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (U.S. 2008) (risk-based standard for Eighth Amendment challenges to lethal injection)
- Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573 (U.S. 2006) (stay standard for execution challenges)
- Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770 (U.S. 1987) (stay requires equitable considerations)
- Republic of Philippines v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 949 F.2d 653 (3d Cir. 1991) (equitable relief framework)
- Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1993) (danger of future harm and threshold for substantial risk)
- DeYoung v. Owens, 646 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2011) (pentobarbital as anesthetic in lethal injection context)
- Pavatt v. Jones, 627 F.3d 1336 (10th Cir. 2010) (allowance of discovery on pentobarbital protocol; death-penalty context)
- Powell v. Thomas, 641 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2011) (approval of pentobarbital substitution in protocol)
- Beaty v. Brewer, 649 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2011) (pentobarbital in execution protocol sufficient anesthetic)
- United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1932) (extrinsic equity relief standards)
- Beggerly, 524 U.S. 38 (U.S. 1998) (independent action to prevent grave miscarriage of justice)
- Morris v. Horn, 187 F.3d 333 (3d Cir. 1999) (abuse-of-discretion standard for Rule 60(b) motions)