Larry Eugene Mann v. John Palmer
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7524
| 11th Cir. | 2013Background
- Mann challenged Florida’s lethal-injection protocol under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after Florida amended the protocol to substitute pentobarbital for sodium pentothal and vecuronium for pancuronium.
- The district court dismissed Mann’s 2013 complaint for failure to state a claim; Mann sought a stay of execution and expedited appeal.
- Mann’s 2013 complaint largely mirrors his 2010 complaint, alleging risk of severe pain due to drug substitutions, inadequate training, improper safeguards, and lack of individualized medical considerations.
- Florida’s 2011 and 2012 protocol changes replaced the first and second drugs in the three-drug protocol; Mann asserted these changes created new Eighth Amendment risk.
- Mann filed a second complaint in 2013 asserting similar objections plus new allegations about drug storage and supply, and sought intervention in a related action challenging the 2011 protocol.
- The district court denied Mann’s motion to amend the complaint to include a clemency-access claim, and Mann did not obtain a stay of execution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mann’s claims are barred by res judicata. | Mann argues the 2013 action is not identical and presents new issues. | The 2013 and 2010 actions involve same parties and same nucleus of operative facts. | Barred; res judicata applies. |
| Whether the new-drug claims are timely and pleaded plausibly. | New drugs constitute a substantial change triggering a new limitations period. | Pentobarbital substitution is not a significant Florida-change; claims untimely. | Untimely under the statute of limitations. |
| Whether Mann stated a plausible Eighth Amendment claim on the updated drugs. | Pentobarbital increases risk of consciousness/pain; supply concerns. | No substantial risk; alternatives exist; lack of adequate proof. | No substantial likelihood of success on merits. |
| Whether Mann’s clemency-access claim warrants relief. | Governor denied updated clemency process without due process. | Clemency is executive; due process minimal; prior hearings sufficed. | No substantial likelihood of success; amendment futile. |
| Whether the decision to deny expedited consideration and stay was proper. | Expedited review is warranted given looming execution. | No likelihood of success; stay denied. | Stay denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Valle v. Singer, 655 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir. 2011) (substitution of pentobarbital not a significant protocol change; limitations period governs)
- Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (U.S. 2008) (governs risk-based assessment for Eighth Amendment claims post decision)
- DeYoung v. Owens, 646 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2011) (reaffirms limits on new challenges to changes in protocol)
- Powell v. Thomas, 643 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2011) (holds pentobarbital substitution not a significant change)
- Arthur v. Thomas, 674 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2012) (narrowly allows evidentiary development in some contexts, not controlling Florida clemency issues)
- Maldonado v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 664 F.3d 1369 (11th Cir. 2011) (relates to res judicata and claim scope)
- Hernando v. City, — (—) (example placeholder not used)