Jessie Hoffman v. Bobby Jindal
2013 WL 4711679
5th Cir.2013Background
- Sepulvado, a death-row inmate, was convicted in 1993 for the murder of his six-year-old stepson and is scheduled for execution under Louisiana law.
- Louisiana repealed its published execution-protocol provisions in 2010 after shortages of sodium thiopental, creating secrecy around the current protocol.
- Hoffman v. Jindal (Hoffman I) and related proceedings involved a suit challenging the state’s refusal to disclose execution details and resulted in a district-court injunction/stay
- Sepulvado sought intervenor status in Hoffman’s suit in February 2013, just days before his execution, prompting the district court to grant an injunction and stay which the Fifth Circuit later reversed.
- The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s injunction and stay, holding there was no cognizable due-process right requiring disclosure of the protocol and that the district court abused its discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sepulvado has a due-process right to disclosure of the current execution protocol. | Sepulvado relies on due process to obtain timely, detailed disclosure to review protocol. | Louisiana argues no cognizable due-process right to probe execution details; disclosure is not required. | No due-process right identified; injunction reversed. |
| Whether the district court properly issued a preliminary injunction on due-process grounds. | Continued concealment violated due process and warranted injunction. | Secrecy serves state interests; no basis for immediate injunction. | District court abused its discretion; injunction vacated. |
| Whether the district court properly issued a stay of execution. | Delay to challenge protocol warranted a stay. | Stay burdens the state; delay unjustified given lack of disclosure. | Stay vacated; no equitable basis for delay. |
| Whether the district court should retain or dismiss other related claims given timing and intervenor status. | Intervention justified to pursue due-process challenge. | Late intervention undermines orderly enforcement and timing concerns. | Not reached as primary relief was reversed; focus remained on due-process merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (U.S. 2008) (upheld constitutionality of lethal injection; supports one-drug protocol viability)
- Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573 (U.S. 2006) (executive-judicial balance in stays of execution)
- White v. Johnson, 429 F.3d 572 (5th Cir. 2005) (cited regarding procedural posture and stay considerations)
- Oken v. Sizer, 542 U.S. 916 (U.S. 2004) (Supreme Court vacated district-court stay; caution on due-process disclosures)
- Beaty v. Brewer, 649 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2011) (no due-process right to protocol disclosure; district court’s reasoning rejected)