CLARENCE E. HILL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES V. CROSBY, JR., CHARLIE CRIST, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Eleventh Circuit denied Hill's application for a stay of execution, holding that his § 1983 suit challenging lethal injection as cruel and unusual punishment was the functional equivalent of a successive habeas petition requiring prior court approval under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).
A § 1983 suit challenging lethal injection as cruel and unusual punishment is the functional equivalent of a successive habeas petition and requires leave of court under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).
[1] A § 1983 suit challenging the constitutionality of a method of execution is the functional equivalent of a successive habeas petition and requires prior authorization under 28 U.S.C. …
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClarence Edward Hill was convicted of capital murder in Florida and sentenced to death with execution scheduled for January 24, 2006. On January 20, 2…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Successive Habeas Petitions cases and more on FLexlaw
BY THE COURT: Appellant Clarence Edward Hill has been convicted of capital murder in Florida and sentenced to death. His execution is scheduled for today, January 24, 2006, at 6:00 p.m.
On January 20, 2006, he applied to this court for leave to file a second and successive habeas petition in an effort to forestall his execution. We denied his application in an order entered earlier today. At the same time, we denied his application under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1651 and 2251 for a stay of his execution. Also on January 20, 2006, appellant brought this suit for declaratory and in-junctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. He contends that death by lethal injection causes pain and unnecessary suffering and thus constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. He seeks a permanent injunction barring his execution.
On January 21, 2006, the district court issued an order dismissing appellant’s complaint on the ground that the complaint “is the ‘functional equivalent’ of a successive habeas petition,” and that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it in the absence of an order from the court of appeals granting appellant leave to file a successive petition.
The district court relied on as authority for its ruling our decision in Robinson v. Crosby, 358 F. 3d 1281 (11th Cir.2004), which, as the district court properly observed, dealt with “the very issue” appellant’s complaint presents here. Appellant now appeals the district court’s order, and he asks that we stay his execution pending our disposition of his appeal. It is clear to us that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider appellant’s claim because it is the functional equivalent of a successive habeas petition and he failed to obtain.leave of this court to file it. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).
And as the panel observed in Robinson, “such an application to file a successive petition would be due to be denied in any event. See In re Provenzano, 215 F. 3d 1233, 1235-36 (11th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1256, 120 S.Ct. 2710, 147 L.Ed.2d 979 (2000) (concluding that a claim that lethal injection constitutes cruel and unusual punishment does not meet the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A) or (B)).” For this reason, we DENY appellant’s application for a stay of his execution pending appeal. SO ORDERED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573 (U.S. 2006)…d execution the Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that Hill’s action was a successive petition and that it would deny any application for leave to file a successive petition because § 2244(b)(2) would not allow his claim to proceed. Hill v. Crosby, 437 F. 3d 1084, 1085 (CA11 2006). After issuing a temporary stay of execution, this Court granted Hill’s petition for certiorari and continued the stay pending our resolution of the case. 546 U. S. 1158 (2006). [*579] II “Federal law opens two main avenues to rel…
-
Rutherford v. McDONOUGH, 466 F.3d 970 (11th Cir. 2006)…1, 2006). Following our precedent in Robinson, 358 F. 3d 1281, and In re Provenzano, 215 F. 3d 1233 (11th Cir.2000), we summarily affirmed the district court and denied Hill’s application for a stay of his execution pending appeal. Hill v. Crosby, 437 F. 3d 1084, 1085 (11th Cir.2006) (per curiam). Against the odds, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Hill’s case. Hill v. Crosby, 546 U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 1189, 1190, 163 L.Ed.2d 1144 (2006) (mem.). Hill’s case is materially different from Rutherford…
-
Rutherford v. Crosby, 438 F.3d 1087 (11th Cir. 2006)…WILSON, Circuit Judge, dissenting: I would stay Rutherford’s execution, and hold his case in abeyance until the Supreme Court reaches a decision in Hill v. Crosby, 437 F. 3d 1084, 2006 WL 163607, No. 06-10621 (11th Cir. Jan. 24, 2006) (per curiam), stay of execution and cert. granted, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 1189, — L.Ed.-, 2006 WL 171583 (U.S. Jan. 25, 2006) (No. 05-8794). The questions presented to the Supreme Court in Hill…1 / 3
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In re Provenzano, 215 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2000)
- Robinson v. Crosby, 358 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2004)
- Burket v. Angelone, 530 U.S. 1256 (U.S. 2000)
- Provenzano v. Moore, 530 U.S. 1256 (U.S. 2000)