79 N.E.3d 383
Ind. Ct. App.2017Background
- Roy Lee Ward is an Indiana death-row inmate challenging a 2014 change in the Department of Correction (DOC) lethal-injection protocol that adopted a three-drug cocktail never before used in U.S. executions.
- The DOC implemented the new protocol internally and did not promulgate it through the Administrative Rules and Procedures Act (ARPA).
- Ward sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging the DOC was required to adopt the protocol as a rule under ARPA and that failure to do so rendered the protocol unlawful (also pleaded due process claims which the court did not reach).
- The State moved to dismiss under Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6); the trial court granted dismissal.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo and examined whether ARPA applies to the DOC and whether the execution protocol meets ARPA’s statutory definition of a "rule."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does ARPA apply to the DOC’s adoption of execution protocols? | ARPA applies; DOC is not excluded from ARPA and must follow it when adopting rules. | DOC contended (at trial) ARPA didn’t apply to executions and (on appeal) argued ARPA need not apply because statute permits DOC to "may adopt" rules. | ARPA applies to the DOC; omission of DOC from ARPA exclusions means DOC is bound by ARPA. |
| Does the lethal-injection statute’s "may adopt rules" language exempt DOC from ARPA? | Ward: "may" does not create an exemption; if DOC chooses to adopt rules it must follow ARPA. | State: "may" means DOC is not required to promulgate rules under ARPA. | "May" is permissive; if DOC adopts rules it must comply with ARPA. |
| Do the DOC’s execution protocols qualify as a "rule" under ARPA? | Protocol is generally applicable, prospective, has effect of law, and affects a class (death-row inmates) — thus a rule. | State (below) argued changes were internal policy exempt from ARPA; on appeal the State was silent on this argument. | Protocol meets statutory and judicial definitions of a rule and is therefore subject to ARPA. |
| Consequence of not complying with ARPA when changing protocol | Noncompliant rule is void and without effect; Ward entitled to relief. | DOC urged practicality and other remedies (e.g., §1983/Eighth Amendment) but did not negate ARPA claim. | Failure to follow ARPA voids the changed protocol; dismissal reversed and case remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen v. Clarian Health Partners, 980 N.E.2d 306 (Ind. 2012) (standard of review and pleading rules for Rule 12(B)(6) dismissal)
- Blinzinger v. Americana Healthcare Corp., 466 N.E.2d 1371 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984) (elements defining an administrative rule under ARPA)
- Villegas v. Silverman, 832 N.E.2d 598 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (distinguishing internal agency policies from rules with primary external impact)