James Roane v. Michele Leonhart
408 U.S. App. D.C. 206
D.C. Cir.2014Background
- Three federal death-row inmates sued (filed 2005) challenging the federal lethal-injection protocol (Eighth Amendment) and the government's refusal to disclose execution procedures (due process). District court stayed executions pending litigation.
- Litigation was repeatedly stayed and delayed (awaiting Hill v. McDonough, Baze v. Rees), discovery was limited, and the government later reported sodium thiopental became unavailable and it would revise the drug protocol.
- Jeffrey Paul moved to intervene as of right (Oct. 2009) the day after his post-conviction proceedings ended; he stipulated he would not reopen decided issues or seek new discovery.
- District court denied Paul’s intervention as untimely based primarily on the time elapsed since the suit’s filing and denied reconsideration; Paul appealed.
- Government argued on appeal that the case might be moot because it ceased using the challenged three-drug cocktail; the court rejected mootness given voluntary-cessation doctrine and the live due-process claim regarding nondisclosure.
- D.C. Circuit held the district court abused its discretion in denying intervention based on passage of time alone because Paul’s addition would not prejudice existing parties and he met Rule 24(a)(2) requirements; reversed and remanded to grant intervention as of right.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness: Has the unavailability of sodium thiopental mooted the case? | Paul: Case remains live — due-process nondisclosure claim survives and government may adopt new protocol. | Government: Stopping use of the challenged three-drug cocktail moots the controversy. | Not moot: voluntary-cessation exception applies; nondisclosure claim remains live. |
| Right to intervene under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) | Paul: Has protectable interest likely impaired, existing parties may not adequately represent him, and he limited his participation (no reopening decided issues). | Government: Paul’s motion was untimely given long delay since suit inception. | Paul satisfied intervention requirements except timeliness was the only contested element; otherwise conceded adequate. |
| Timeliness of intervention motion | Paul: Motion filed promptly after his post-conviction relief ended; adding him would not prejudice existing parties; he waived reopening discovery/issues. | Government: Motion was untimely because suit had been pending since 2005 and he could have intervened earlier. | Timeliness: District court abused discretion by focusing on elapsed time; lack of prejudice to parties makes motion timely. |
| Need for additional factual development or prejudice | Paul: No new discovery or reopening of decided issues would be required; other inmates had intervened earlier without prejudice. | Government: Implied prejudice from delay and potential disruption. | Held: No reasonable showing of prejudice; intervention would not unfairly disadvantage original parties. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573 (2006) (Eighth Amendment challenge to lethal injection may proceed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983)
- Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008) (upholding Kentucky lethal-injection protocol under Eighth Amendment)
- St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Barry, 438 U.S. 531 (1978) (mootness implicates jurisdiction; court may consider sua sponte)
- Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 721 (2013) (case becomes moot when issues are no longer live or parties lack a cognizable interest)
- Natural Resources Defense Council v. Costle, 561 F.2d 904 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (timeliness of intervention judged by all circumstances; prejudice to existing parties is key)
- Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Norton, 322 F.3d 728 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (interest impairment and intervention where adverse precedent could affect intervenor)
- Knox v. Service Employees Int'l Union, Local 1000, 132 S. Ct. 2277 (2012) (parties need only a concrete interest, however small, to avoid mootness)