07-15258 | 11th Cir. | Nov 9, 2007
In Re: Mark Dean SCHWAB, Petitioner.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
*1370 Before DUBINA, CARNES and HULL, Circuit Judges.
BY THE COURT:
We have previously affirmed the denial of federal habeas relief to Mark Dean Schwab, a Florida death row inmate. Schwab v. Crosby, 451 F.3d 1308" court="11th Cir." date_filed="2006-06-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/mark-dean-schwab-v-james-v-crosby-jr-77360?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="77360">451 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir.2006). Before us now are his application to file a second or successive federal habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), and a motion for stay of execution in order to permit us time to consider that application. The only claim Schwab wants to raise in a second petition involves the constitutionality of Florida's lethal injection procedures and protocols.
Even if such a claim were properly cognizable in an initial federal habeas petition, instead of in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 proceeding, see generally Hill v. McDonough, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S. Ct. 2096" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="2006-06-12" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/hill-v-mcdonough-145647?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="145647">126 S.Ct. 2096, 2099, 165 L.Ed.2d 44 (2006); Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="2004-05-24" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/nelson-v-campbell-134747?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="134747">541 U.S. 637, 124 S.Ct. 2117, 158 L.Ed.2d 924 (2004), Rutherford v. McDonough, 466 F.3d 970" court="11th Cir." date_filed="2006-10-05" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/arthur-d-rutherford-v-james-mcdonough-77507?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="77507">466 F.3d 970, 973 (11th Cir.2006) (observing that pre-Nelson circuit law requiring challenges to lethal injection procedures to be brought in a § 2254 proceeding is "no longer valid in light of the Supreme Court's Hill decision."), this claim cannot serve as a proper basis for a second or successive habeas petition. It cannot because it neither relies on a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A), nor involves facts relating to guilt or innocence, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii).
Our disposition of the application renders the motion for stay of execution moot.
APPLICATION DENIED; MOTION FOR STAY DENIED AS MOOT.