Powell v. Thomas
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62239
M.D. Ala.2011Background
- Powell, an Alabama death row inmate, filed a § 1983 action alleging Eighth Amendment cruelty and Fourteenth Amendment due process violations due to ADOC's switch from sodium thiopental to pentobarbital in the lethal injection protocol.
- ADOC announced the switch on April 26, 2011, shortly before Powell’s scheduled June 16, 2011 execution date.
- Powell previously challenged Alabama’s lethal injection protocol in state and federal courts; his conviction became final in 2001, long before the 2002 protocol change.
- The district court in Williams v. Thomas had found the 2002 switch did not constitute a significant alteration in the protocol; Powell’s claims are procedurally linked to the same protocol change.
- Powell filed his complaint on May 13, 2011, arguing ongoing constitutional violations and challenging the secrecy of execution procedures.
- The court interpreted accrual under McNair v. Allen to begin on July 31, 2002, when inmates could be deemed subject to lethal injection, unless a substantial change reset accrual.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Powell's § 1983 claims are time-barred by a two-year statute of limitations | Powell contends no timely accrual occurred due to ongoing secrecy and changes. | Accrual occurred in 2002 with lethal injection adoption, expiring 2004; the 2011 suit is untimely. | Yes; claims barred as untimely. |
| Whether the pentobarbital change is a 'significant alteration' resetting accrual | Change to pentobarbital constitutes a substantial alteration. | Powell v. Thomas held it is not a significant alteration. | No; not a reset of accrual. |
| Whether the secrecy/ Due Process claim accrues when secrecy is discoverable or when the protocol changed | Secrecy surrounding execution procedures continued to violate due process. | Secrecy claim should have been apparent by 2002; no new accrual from the 2011 change. | Barred; accrual in 2002. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crowe v. Donald, 528 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2008) (§1983 accrual follows state tort limitations for personal injury actions)
- McNair v. Allen, 515 F.3d 1168 (11th Cir. 2008) (accrual begins on later of end of state review or substantial protocol change)
- Powell v. Thomas, 641 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2011) (replacement of thiopental with pentobarbital not a significant protocol change)
- Powell v. Allen, 131 S. Ct. 1002 (2011) (habeas claims and procedural context relevant to execution protocol challenges)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard governs pleading sufficiency)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard; not mere speculation)
- Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308 (2007) (reasonable inferences; standard for evaluating pleadings and claims)
- Tello v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 410 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2005) (court may consider documents incorporated by reference in Rule 12(b)(6) context)