Russell Bucklew v. George Lombardi
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 3549
| 8th Cir. | 2015Background
- Bucklew, convicted of murder, kidnapping, and rape; death sentence upheld after state post-conviction relief denied.
- Missouri planned May 21, 2014 execution; Bucklew filed a § 1983 challenge to the lethal injection method based on cavernous hemangioma.
- District court dismissed Bucklew’s facial Eighth Amendment challenge and then Bucklew appealed stay of execution.
- This court granted a stay pending appeal; the Supreme Court granted a stay pending appeal and left open whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary.
- The court previously issued Lombardi en banc guidance requiring a plausible substantial risk of pain and a feasible ready-to-implement alternative for Eighth Amendment claims; Bucklew’s as-applied claim is distinguished from Zink’s facial challenge.
- The case is remanded for focused, expedited proceedings addressing Bucklew’s as-applied challenge and the availability of a readily implementable alternative method.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the district court’s sua sponte dismissal proper under Lombardi and Baze? | Bucklew argues dismissal was improper; the record shows substantial risk and potential alternative. | Defendants contend no plausible claim under Baze and Lombardi without a readily available alternative. | No; the district court erred in dismissing sua sponte and the merits must be addressed on remand. |
| Does Bucklew's as-applied claim plausibly allege a substantial risk of severe pain with an available alternative? | Bucklew alleges unique medical condition creates substantial risk and that alternative exists. | Missouri argues requirements of Lombardi/Baze apply; Bucklew failed to plead an available alternative. | Remand required to evaluate merits with focused inquiry and potential alternative. |
| Should the case be remanded to resolve merits and timing without premature determinations? | Continued proceedings needed to develop record and assess feasibility of alternatives. | Proceedings should focus narrowly on essential issues and avoid further delay. | Yes; remand for narrowly tailored proceedings addressing the as-applied challenge. |
| Are Bucklew’s claims barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel due to Zink judgment? | Zink did not resolve Bucklew’s as-applied claim; identical issues separated in time. | Final Zink judgment could preclude as-applied claims. | Preclusion issue to be addressed on remand; not decided here. |
| What is the applicable statute of limitations for method-of-execution claims at this stage? | Delays occurred; claim timely. | Timing uncertain; statute unclear. | Remand to determine timeliness and related procedural issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (U.S. 2008) (requires plausible substantial risk and feasible humane alternative for Eighth Amendment claim)
- In re Lombardi, 741 F.3d 888 (8th Cir. en banc) (set out standard for Eighth Amendment method claims; alternative analysis required)
- Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637 (U.S. 2004) (district court may remand if alternative procedure could be implemented)
- Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573 (U.S. 2006) (stay pending appeal indicating significant likelihood of merit)
- Siebert v. Allen, 506 F.3d 1047 (11th Cir. 2007) (as-applied challenges distinguished from facial challenges)
- Hall v. Florida, 134 S. Ct. 1986 (S. Ct. 2014) (recognizes limits on execution where disability affects eligibility)
- Cooey v. Strickland, 604 F.3d 939 (6th Cir. 2010) (noted for discussions of timeliness and procedural posture in death-penalty claims)
- Occhino v. United States, 686 F.2d 1302 (8th Cir. 1982) (illustrates approach to applying preclusion in unusual procedural posture)