Valle v. Singer
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18574
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Valle, a death-row inmate, was scheduled to be executed by Florida via lethal injection; the state planned to use pentobarbital instead of sodium thiopental in a three-drug protocol.
- Initially set for August 2, 2011, a stay from the Florida Supreme Court allowed a circuit court to decide whether the protocol change violated the Eighth Amendment; the circuit court denied relief and the Florida Supreme Court lifted its stay.
- Valle’s execution was rescheduled for September 6, 2011, with a temporary stay in this Court expiring on September 8, 2011 at 7:00 p.m.
- Valle filed a federal civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, a TRO, and a stay of execution, arguing the pentobarbital substitution and FDOC procedures violated Eighth, due process, and equal protection rights.
- Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing §1983 claims were time-barred and plaintiffs failed to state a claim; Valle relied on expert reports and external positions suggesting pentobarbital may be unsafe for executions.
- The district court denied the TRO/stay, concluding Valle had not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, adopting the district court’s reasoning and denying relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Valle has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his Eighth Amendment claim. | Valle asserts pentobarbital risks pain and insensitivity, constituting cruel and unusual punishment. | Defendants contend the protocol does not create an objectively intolerable risk of harm and is not a significant alteration. | No substantial likelihood of success; Eighth Amendment claim rejected. |
| Whether the substitution of pentobarbital reset the statute of limitations for §1983 claims. | Valle argues the protocol change constitutes a significant change that restarted the limitations period. | Defendants contend there was no significant alteration resetting the clock; claims are time-barred. | No restart; claims untimely under the four-year limitations period. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Valle's stay of execution. | Valle claims a demonstrated risk of severe harm and need for merits review justifying a stay. | Defendants argue the four-factor stay test is not met given lack of substantial likelihood of success on the merits. | District court did not abuse discretion; stay denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (U.S. 2008) (requires substantial risk of serious harm for stays in lethal injection cases)
- DeYoung v. Owens, 646 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2011) (four-factor stay test for execution; confirms no significant alteration in protocol)
- Powell v. Thomas (Powell II), 643 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2011) (reaffirms that pentobarbital substitution is not a significant protocol change resetting limitations)
- Powell v. Thomas (Powell I), 641 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2011) (initial rejection of stay based on similar pentobarbital substitution)
- Van Poyck v. McCollum, 646 F.3d 865 (11th Cir. 2011) (addressed limitations and evolving lethal-injection challenges in the circuit)
- Lightbourne v. McCollum, 969 So.2d 2 (Fla. 2007) (Florida Supreme Court on protocol sufficiency and safeguards)
- McNair v. Allen, 515 F.3d 1168 (11th Cir. 2008) (limitations and merits framework for Eighth Amendment challenges to execution)
- Hernyan v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., 543 F.3d 644 (11th Cir. 2008) (statutory limitations and standards for Eighth Amendment challenges)
- Lundbeck, Inc. position regarding pentobarbital, no official reporter cited in opinion (2011) (manufacturer statements about safety/approval do not by themselves create substantial risk)