Willie B. Smith, III v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, 21-13581

Background:

Willie B. Smith III, a death-row inmate in Alabama with acknowledged significant subaverage intellectual functioning, sued the ADOC Commissioner and Holman Warden under Title II of the ADA.
Alabama law (Ala. Code § 15-18-82.1(b)) gives death-row prisoners a 30-day window to elect execution by nitrogen hypoxia instead of lethal injection; ADOC distributed a three-sentence Election Form near the deadline.
Smith alleges he received the form without explanation, lacked meaningful understanding, and requested a reasonable accommodation (or that one was obviously required) to comprehend and exercise the election.
Defendants provided a general answer denying unspecified allegations; Smith moved for partial summary judgment on the ADA third-prong (discrimination "by reason of" disability) based on deemed admissions under Rule 8(b), and sought a preliminary injunction and a stay preventing execution by methods other than nitrogen hypoxia.
The district court denied partial summary judgment and denied a preliminary injunction after extensive evidentiary proceedings; the Eleventh Circuit affirms those denials and denies a stay of execution. Judge Jill Pryor concurs but criticizes ADOC’s handling of the Election Form and argues Smith should have been given another chance to elect.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether parts of Defendants' Answer admitted facts under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b) so the ADA "by reason of" prong is established as a matter of law	Smith: Defendants failed to specifically deny allegations in paras. 33–36, so those allegations are deemed admitted under Rule 8(b)(6) (showing obvious need, ADOC knowledge, lack of understanding, and reasonable accommodations)	Defendants: Their Answer expressly admitted some facts and generally denied the rest consistent with Rule 8(b)(3); reading Rule 8 strictly to create admissions would elevate form over substance	Court: Affirmed district court — Rule 8(b)(3) permits specific admissions and a general denial of the remainder; no deemed admissions were created, so partial summary judgment was properly denied
Whether Smith demonstrated he was denied meaningful access to the Election Form (ADA Title II second element)	Smith: The form and lack of explanation deprived him of meaningful access because of his cognitive disability	Defendants: Smith failed to show he lacked meaningful access; many inmates received verbal explanation and procedural facts do not establish a denial of services	Court: Affirmed — district court found Smith failed to demonstrate lack of meaningful access based on the record
Whether Smith demonstrated discrimination "by reason of" his disability (ADA Title II third element) — i.e., that ADOC knew or should have known of need and failed to accommodate	Smith: ADOC knew or should have known his disability made the Election Form ineffective and failed to provide reasonable accommodations (simple language, comprehension check, extra time, assistive tech)	Defendants: No evidence of an obvious need or a particular request; ADOC cannot be held to admissions Smith claims; procedural and factual record do not show discrimination by reason of disability	Court: Affirmed — district court found Smith did not request an accommodation nor show his need was so obvious that ADOC should have known; thus no substantial likelihood of success on the merits
Whether to grant preliminary injunction / stay of execution	Smith: Without injunctive relief, he will be irreparably harmed and is likely to succeed on his ADA claim	Defendants/State: Public interest and procedures favor denying injunction; Smith has not met the heavy burden to show likelihood of success	Court: Denied preliminary injunction and stay — Smith failed to show substantial likelihood of success on the merits; stay denied for same reason

Key Cases Cited

Bircoll v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 480 F.3d 1072 (11th Cir.) (Title II ADA elements)
Transcon. Gas Pipe Line Co. v. 6.04 Acres, 910 F.3d 1130 (11th Cir. 2018) (pendent appellate jurisdiction principles)
Jones v. Fransen, 857 F.3d 843 (11th Cir. 2017) (when nonappealable order may be reviewed with injunction order)
Hudson v. Hall, 231 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2000) (pendent jurisdiction over intertwined issues)
E.E.O.C. v. St. Joseph’s Hosp., Inc., 842 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2016) (summary judgment standard and evidence viewed for nonmoving party)
Ray v. Comm’r, Ala. Dep’t of Corr., 915 F.3d 689 (11th Cir. 2019) (construing pleadings and Rule 8 in context)
Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163 (11th Cir. 2000) (preliminary injunction factors and burden)
Revette v. Int’l Ass’n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, 740 F.2d 892 (11th Cir. 1984) (narrow appellate review of preliminary injunction decisions)
Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968 (1997) (standard on preliminary injunction burden)
Valle v. Singer, 655 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir. 2011) (stay-of-execution standard mirrors preliminary injunction)