Thomas Arthur v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections
695 F. App'x 418
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Thomas Arthur, under a death sentence, filed a § 1983 challenge nine days before a May 25, 2017 execution, again attacking Alabama’s use of midazolam as the first drug in its lethal-injection protocol.
- Arthur previously litigated multi-year § 1983 challenges to Alabama’s execution protocols (including a bench trial and appellate review) and lost in the Middle District of Alabama and the Eleventh Circuit; the Supreme Court denied certiorari and rehearing in early 2017.
- In the new suit filed in the Southern District of Alabama, Arthur alleged ADOC had actual knowledge midazolam causes agonizing pain based on several recent executions (in Alabama and other states) and sought injunctive relief/stay.
- The Southern District dismissed Arthur’s complaint with prejudice on two independent grounds: res judicata (claims could have been raised earlier) and equitable principles against eleventh‑hour challenges (unreasonable delay).
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, applying de novo review to res judicata and abuse‑of‑discretion review to the district court’s equitable dismissal and denial of a stay; the court also concluded Arthur failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Arthur's new midazolam‑based Eighth Amendment claim is barred by res judicata | Arthur: new evidence (recent executions) shows ADOC had actual knowledge and thus a distinct "intentional infliction" claim | Alabama: claim arises from the same nucleus of operative facts as prior midazolam litigation and could have been raised earlier | Barred by res judicata — claim could and should have been raised in prior litigation |
| Whether Arthur unreasonably delayed and thus is barred from equitable relief | Arthur: recent executions post‑date prior litigation and supply new facts justifying late filing | Alabama: Arthur waited months after Alabama executions and years after protocol adoption; delay appears aimed at delay rather than relief | Dismissal on equitable grounds affirmed — unreasonable, unjustified delay in filing |
| Whether a stay of execution should issue | Arthur: shows risk from midazolam demonstrated by recent executions and witness affidavit (Smith) | Alabama: no substantial likelihood of success; news accounts and record do not show midazolam is sure or very likely to cause severe pain; strong presumption against eleventh‑hour stays | Stay denied — Arthur failed to show substantial likelihood of success and equitable entitlement |
| Merits of Eighth Amendment challenge to midazolam (as‑applied) | Arthur: midazolam is not an effective anesthetic and creates intolerable risk of severe pain; recent botched executions show intent/actual knowledge | Alabama: prior extensive litigation found no Eighth Amendment violation; news reports and affidavit insufficient to meet Eighth Amendment standard | Court declined to reach merits fully but held Arthur failed to demonstrate substantial likelihood of success on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Mann v. Palmer, 713 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2013) (res judicata bars claims that were or could have been raised earlier)
- Maldonado v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 664 F.3d 1369 (11th Cir. 2011) (standards for claim‑preclusion analysis)
- Grayson v. Allen, 491 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2007) (equitable dismissal of eleventh‑hour § 1983 suits for unreasonable delay)
- Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573 (2006) (recognizing courts’ equitable power to dismiss dilatory § 1983 challenges by death‑row inmates)
- Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637 (2004) (stay considerations require evaluating unnecessary delay given the State’s interest)
- Jones v. Allen, 485 F.3d 635 (11th Cir. 2007) (dilatory filings on eve of execution indicate purpose to delay rather than obtain relief)
- Brooks v. Warden, 810 F.3d 812 (11th Cir. 2016) (stay factors and presumption against eleventh‑hour stays)
- Ledford v. Comm’r, Ga. Dep’t of Corr., 856 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2017) (refusal to grant a stay where suit filed days before execution)
- Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008) (Eighth Amendment framework for method‑of‑execution challenges)