Ledford v. Commissioner, Georgia Department of Corrections
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8610
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- J.W. Ledford, Jr., condemned to death, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as-applied challenge five days before his scheduled execution (May 16, 2017), claiming long‑term gabapentin use will prevent pentobarbital from rendering him insensate and thus cause severe pain.
- Georgia’s protocol since 2013 uses a single 5‑gram dose of compounded pentobarbital; Georgia adopted lethal injection in 2001.
- The district court denied a TRO and dismissed the § 1983 complaint as time‑barred and for failure to show a substantial likelihood of Eighth Amendment success; it also denied equitable relief given the late filing.
- A three‑judge Eleventh Circuit panel denied Ledford’s emergency motion for a stay, concluding the § 1983 claims were time‑barred, failed on the merits under Glossip/Baze, and equity precluded relief because of delay and finality interests.
- Judges Carnes and Hull wrote concurrences emphasizing the timeliness and equitable‑delay grounds; Judges Wilson and Jill Pryor dissented from denial of en banc review, arguing the accrual rule for as‑applied claims (Mullinax/Siebert) could render Ledford’s claim timely and that Arthur unfairly narrows available relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of limitations accrual for method‑of‑execution § 1983 claims | Ledford: his as‑applied claim accrues when his changed medical condition became apparent (recently), so his filing is timely | State: accrual is governed by Eleventh Circuit precedent—accrues on completion of direct review or when subject to a new/substantially changed protocol (2001/2013), so suit is untimely | Court: Claim time‑barred under circuit precedent (accrual by 2001/2013); dismissal for statute of limitations |
| Eighth Amendment — substantial risk of severe pain (as‑applied) | Ledford: decade of escalating gabapentin use likely diminishes pentobarbital’s anesthetic effect, creating a high risk of severe pain | State: experts say 5,000 mg pentobarbital is sufficient even given gabapentin; fourteen Georgia executions with no incidents; Ledford’s experts do not quantify delay to insensibility | Court: Ledford failed to show the risk is “sure or very likely” to cause severe pain; no substantial likelihood of success on the merits |
| Known and available alternatives requirement (Glossip/Baze) | Ledford: identified firing squad as potential alternative (and generally urged alternatives) | State: Ledford did not identify a feasible, readily implemented alternative that would significantly reduce risk; firing squad not state‑authorized or shown feasible | Court: Ledford failed to identify a viable alternative; alternative claims implausible and time‑barred |
| Equitable relief / stay on the eve of execution | Ledford: emergency circumstances and alleged recent medical development justify equitable relief | State: extreme delay (five days before execution) and State/victims’ interest in finality weigh heavily against a stay | Court: Denied stay on equitable grounds — delay, State’s and victims’ interests, and strong presumption against last‑minute stays |
Key Cases Cited
- Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008) (Eighth Amendment requires showing an objectively intolerable risk and known, feasible alternatives)
- Glossip v. Gross, 135 S. Ct. 2726 (2015) (clarifies proof standard for method‑of‑execution challenges; requires substantial risk and known, available alternatives)
- Gissendaner v. Comm’r, Ga. Dep’t of Corr., 779 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2015) (accrual rule for method‑of‑execution claims and timeliness analysis)
- McNair v. Allen, 515 F.3d 1168 (11th Cir. 2008) (accrual on completion of direct review or when subject to a new/substantially changed protocol)
- Wellons v. Comm’r, Ga. Dep’t of Corr., 754 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2014) (timeliness and merits standards for execution challenges)
- Jones v. Allen, 485 F.3d 635 (11th Cir. 2007) (denial of dilatory stays filed on the eve of execution)
- Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637 (2004) (stay is equitable relief; courts consider delay and relative harms)
- Siebert v. Allen, 506 F.3d 1047 (11th Cir. 2007) (as‑applied challenge timely where based on a recent medical diagnosis)
- Mullinax v. McElhenney, 817 F.2d 711 (11th Cir. 1987) (statute of limitations accrues when facts supporting cause of action are or should be apparent)
- Arthur v. Comm’r, Ala. Dep’t of Corr., 840 F.3d 1268 (11th Cir. 2016) (controlling circuit precedent on alternatives requirement; discussed by concurrence/dissent)