Juan Chavez v. Florida SP Warden, etal
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2700
11th Cir.2014Background
- Juan Carlos Chavez, convicted of particularly brutal murder, challenged Florida’s 2013 lethal-injection protocol after the state replaced pentobarbital with 500 mg midazolam as the first drug in a three-drug sequence.
- Chavez filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action and sought a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and stay of execution alleging Eighth Amendment cruel-and-unusual-punishment risk from midazolam.
- His expert (Dr. Lubarsky) testified midazolam is not an effective sole anesthetic, can cause paradoxical reactions, has no analgesic properties, and thus may leave inmates conscious to feel vecuronium-induced asphyxiation and potassium-chloride pain; he pointed to reported movements in recent executions.
- The State’s expert (Dr. Evans) testified that the massive 500 mg dose would produce an anesthetic state similar to barbiturates, cause respiratory/cardiac arrest, and that reported movements do not indicate consciousness; the district court credited Dr. Evans and found Chavez’s evidence speculative.
- The district court denied preliminary relief; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding Chavez failed to show a substantial likelihood of success because (1) the district court’s factual findings that midazolam renders an inmate insensate were not clearly erroneous, and (2) Chavez did not identify an available, feasible alternative drug.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether midazolam protocol creates an Eighth Amendment "substantial risk of serious harm" | Midazolam (500 mg) is not an effective sole anesthetic; risk of paradoxical reactions and awareness during vecuronium/potassium chloride | Massive midazolam dose will render inmate unconscious and insensate; movements do not prove consciousness | Denied — plaintiff failed to show substantial likelihood of success; district court credibility findings sustained |
| Whether plaintiff identified a "known and available" alternative that is feasible and would significantly reduce risk | Advocated a single-drug barbiturate protocol (e.g., pentobarbital/thiopental) as safer alternative | Barbiturates are unavailable; plaintiff did not prove any specific alternative is available or readily implementable | Denied — plaintiff failed to identify/prove an available, feasible alternative |
| Whether reported movements in other executions show protocol unsound | Movements/gasping/evidence from other states indicate midazolam inadequacy | Movements can occur without consciousness; other protocols differ materially | Denied — movements do not establish substantial risk under this protocol |
| Whether preliminary relief / stay should issue pending appeal | Imminent execution and risk justify stay/injunction | Burden to obtain stay: must show substantial likelihood of success; district court findings defeat that showing | Denied — stay and injunction denied because Chavez did not show substantial likelihood of success |
Key Cases Cited
- Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008) (Eighth Amendment test for lethal injection: substantial risk plus known, available, feasible alternative)
- Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564 (1985) (appellate deference to trial court credibility/factual findings)
- Valle v. Singer, 655 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir. 2011) (standard for stay of execution mirrors preliminary injunction; movant must show substantial likelihood of success)
- United States v. Lebowitz, 676 F.3d 1000 (11th Cir. 2012) (deference to factfinder on live testimony credibility)
- Chavez v. State, 832 So.2d 730 (Fla. 2002) (background on Chavez’s convictions and prior proceedings)