Powell v. Thomas
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52376
| M.D. Ala. | 2011Background
- Williams seeks a stay of execution related to Alabama's switch from sodium thiopental to pentobarbital in the lethal-injection protocol; he challenges only the drug change, not the sentence or method per se.
- The court granted Williams’s intervention and consolidated his claims with Powell’s §1983 suit challenging the protocol.
- Alabama’s execution protocol contemplates two IV lines, consciousness assessment, and a three-drug sequence starting with either sodium thiopental or pentobarbital, with subsequent administration of the remaining drugs.
- The alleged injury stems from potential consciousness and pain during the final drugs if pentobarbital does not adequately anesthetize or is improperly administered.
- The Alabama Supreme Court set Williams’s execution date for May 19, 2011, and the federal stay petition was filed on May 13, 2011; the court must apply stay standards to weigh likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest.
- The court ultimately denies the stay given Williams’s failure to show substantial likelihood of success on the merits and lack of irreparable harm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Williams is entitled to a stay of execution. | Williams argues the switch to pentobarbital risks cruel treatment. | Defendants contend the risk is not substantial under controlling standards. | Denied stay; no substantial likelihood of success. |
| Whether Williams has shown a substantial likelihood of success on Eighth Amendment challenges. | Williams asserts pentobarbital will cause pain due to inadequate anesthesia. | Defendants rely on Baze and medical testimony showing low risk of pain. | Denied; Williams failed to meet the Baze standard. |
| Whether Williams has shown a substantial likelihood of success on due process claims. | Notice and opportunity to comment on protocol violated due process. | No actionable due process injury shown; federal/state procedures justify notice aspects. | Denied; no substantial likelihood of success on due process claims. |
| Whether irreparable harm supports a stay. | Unconscious pain during execution constitutes irreparable harm. | Irreparable harm not established given lack of substantial likelihood on merits. | Denied; irreparable harm not shown. |
| Whether public interest and balance of harms favor a stay. | Staying execution protects against unconstitutional method. | State and victims have strong interest in timely enforcement of death sentence. | Denied; public interest weighs against a stay. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573 (2006) (stay standard for death-row challenges to execution methods; equity-based)
- Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637 (2004) (last-minute stays and equitable considerations; avoid manipulation)
- Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008) (establishes substantial risk standard for Eighth Amendment challenges to lethal-injection protocols)
- Grayson v. Allen, 491 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir.2007) (rejection of confidentiality defense; informs delay analysis for §1983 claims)
- Pavatt v. Jones, 627 F.3d 1336 (10th Cir.2010) (relevance of expert testimony on pentobarbital protocols in lethal-injection challenges)