Robert Campbell v. Brad Livingston
567 F. App'x 287
5th Cir.2014Background
- Robert James Campbell, sentenced to death in Texas for a 1991 rape and murder, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action seeking disclosure about the lethal drug and a stay of execution set for May 13, 2014.
- Campbell requested details about the pentobarbital: source, preparation, testing, lot numbers, and related records used in TDCJ’s single-drug protocol.
- Texas disclosed it would use a five-gram dose of pentobarbital from a licensed U.S. compounding pharmacy; the specific batch tested at 108% potency and was contaminant-free.
- The district court denied Campbell’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction; Campbell appealed to the Fifth Circuit.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed the preliminary injunction factors and precedents governing stay-of-execution and § 1983 challenges to execution protocols.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Campbell is entitled to disclosure of detailed information about the pentobarbital prior to execution | Campbell argued nondisclosure prevents him from showing a substantial risk of severe pain and impairs his ability to bring a meaningful Eighth Amendment challenge | Texas argued it had disclosed material facts (drug identity, dose, source type, and test results) and that the single-drug protocol is constitutionally valid | Denied — Campbell failed to show likelihood of success or more than speculative risk from undisclosed details |
| Whether a preliminary injunction / stay should issue to prevent execution under the § 1983 claim | Campbell sought equitable relief (injunction/stay) to require disclosure and halt execution | Texas asserted strong state interest in timely carrying out sentence and that equity does not favor a stay absent clear constitutional violation | Denied — equitable factors and precedent counsel against a stay absent stronger showing |
| Whether speculation about unknown drug variables suffices to show substantial risk of severe pain | Campbell relied on possible unknowns about preparation/testing to show risk | Texas relied on lab results and prior use of pentobarbital in executions to rebut speculative harm | Denied — mere speculation is insufficient; must point to concrete, fact-based risk |
| Whether § 1983 is the proper vehicle to obtain a stay/disclosure in this context | Campbell used § 1983 to challenge execution conditions/protocol | Texas and precedents indicate § 1983 does not automatically entitle petitioner to a stay and equitable relief is limited | Denied — § 1983 claim did not warrant preliminary injunction here |
Key Cases Cited
- Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (recognizing narrow Eighth Amendment standard for execution methods)
- Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573 (stays under § 1983 are not automatic; equitable relief limited)
- Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 647 (equitable respect for state’s interest in carrying out sentences)
- Thorson v. Epps, 701 F.3d 444 (5th Cir. recognition of single-drug pentobarbital protocol validity)
- Whitaker v. Livingston, 732 F.3d 465 (speculation insufficient; must show likely severe pain)
- Janvey v. Alguire, 647 F.3d 585 ( Fifth Circuit articulation of preliminary injunction factors )