Marcus A. Wellons v. Commissioner, Georgia Department of Corrections
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11396
| 11th Cir. | 2014Background
- Marcus Wellons, convicted of murder and rape in 1993, exhausted state and federal habeas proceedings and was scheduled for execution on June 17, 2014.
- Wellons filed a § 1983 suit seeking a TRO, stay of execution, preliminary injunction, and declaratory relief challenging Georgia’s refusal to disclose information about the lethal-injection drug source and execution personnel under the Lethal Injection Secrecy Act (O.C.G.A. § 42-5-36).
- Georgia provided a 2012 lethal injection protocol specifying a one-drug pentobarbital procedure, but officials had not had FDA-approved pentobarbital since March 2013, creating concern that a compounded (non-FDA) pentobarbital would be used.
- Wellons argued nondisclosure prevented him from showing the drug or the execution team posed an Eighth Amendment risk of severe pain, and also raised First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment due-process and access-to-information claims.
- The district court held an evidentiary hearing, found Wellons’s claims speculative (insufficient to show a risk that is "sure or very likely" to cause serious suffering), and denied injunctive and declaratory relief; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of a stay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether nondisclosure of drug provenance and execution-team identities violates the Eighth Amendment | Wellons: secrecy prevents him from proving compounded pentobarbital or unqualified personnel create a substantial, imminent risk of severe pain | State: plaintiff’s concerns are speculative; unknowns do not show an objectively intolerable or "sure or very likely" risk | Denied — speculative allegations insufficient; no substantial likelihood of success on the merits of an Eighth Amendment claim |
| Whether Wellons has a First Amendment right of access to information about execution protocol | Wellons: public and individual interests require disclosure to inform debate and allow challenges | State: First Amendment access focuses on public interest, not an individual prisoner’s entitlement to these details | Denied — no broad First Amendment right to the requested procurement/identity information |
| Whether due process (Fifth/Fourteenth) requires disclosure to litigate Eighth Amendment claims | Wellons: lack of notice/opportunity to be heard prevents meaningful litigation of execution method challenges | State: withholding details does not deprive petitioner of a cognizable due-process right; claims are essentially speculative Eighth Amendment claims | Denied — no due-process right established to obtain this information; claims collapse into speculative method-of-execution challenge |
| Whether § 1983 claims were time-barred by statutes of limitations | Wellons: secrecy/new practices could constitute substantial change restarting limitations period | State: no significant change shown; prior change occurred in 2001 (electrocution to lethal injection) | Court: limitations likely expired but reached the merits given stakes; statute-of-limitations argument was not dispositive here |
Key Cases Cited
- Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008) (Eighth Amendment challenge to lethal injection requires showing an objectively intolerable risk of severe pain)
- Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993) (future-harm claims require a risk that is "sure or very likely" to cause serious illness and needless suffering)
- Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986) (due process requires adequate procedures to adjudicate competency-to-be-executed claims)
- Chavez v. Florida SP Warden, 742 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir.) (stay/TRO factors and appellate standard for stays in execution contexts)
- Mann v. Palmer, 713 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir.) (speculation about non-FDA drugs insufficient to show substantial risk; plaintiff must show feasible, significant alternatives)
- DeYoung v. Owens, 646 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir.) (statute-of-limitations principles for method-of-execution claims)
- McNair v. Allen, 515 F.3d 1168 (11th Cir.) (timing rules for accrual of method-of-execution claims)
- Arthur v. Thomas, 674 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir.) (fact-specific inquiry into whether protocol changes are "significant" to restart limitations)