Ringo v. Lombardi
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9298
8th Cir.2012Background
- Missouri state prisoners convicted of first-degree murder were sentenced to death and challenged Missouri's lethal-injection protocol under CSA and FDCA.
- Plaintiffs filed suit in district court on December 2, 2010 seeking a declaration that the protocol violates federal law and an injunction against executions under the challenged methods.
- District court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, holding plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue declaratory relief.
- Appellants argued the case presented an ongoing live controversy because the drug supply and administration method could still violate federal law.
- A key development was Hospira, Inc. ceasing production of sodium thiopental, creating a nationwide shortage and uncertainty about the DOC's ability to execute under the current protocol.
- District court proceedings and appellate briefing occurred as states considered alternative drugs (e.g., pentobarbital), and a D.D.C. court later held FDA actions regarding imports of sodium thiopental.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the case is moot. | Appellants assert ongoing injury from the protocol and drug procurement. | DOC contends no present, concrete controversy due to drug shortage and potential protocol changes. | Case is moot; declaratory relief not warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395 (1975) (standing to litigate requires an actual controversy)
- Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. 103 (1969) (Declaratory Judgment Act requires actual controversy)
- Neighborhood Transp. Network, Inc. v. Pena, 42 F.3d 1169 (8th Cir. 1994) (mootness affects jurisdiction and may be raised sua sponte)
- Olin Water Servs. v. Midland Research Labs., Inc., 774 F.2d 303 (8th Cir. 1985) (jurisdictional mootness considerations)
- Rice v., Md. Cas. Co., 404 U.S. 244 (1971) (actual controversy must exist at all stages of review)
- Md. Cas. Co. v. Pac. Coal & Oil Co., 312 U.S. 270 (1941) (substantial controversy standard for declaratory relief)
- Hall v. Beals, 396 U.S. 45 (1969) (precise test for whether a dispute qualifies for advisory opinions)
- Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998) (narrow mootness exception does not always apply)
- Hickman v. Missouri, 144 F.3d 1141 (8th Cir. 1998) (proper inquiry for duration of challenged activity)