Bucklew v. Lombardi, No. 14-2163 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseBucklew was convicted in state court of murder, kidnapping, and rape and sentenced to death. After Missouri courts denied post-conviction relief, the Eighth Circuit affirmed denial of Bucklew’s petition for habeas corpus. The Supreme Court of Missouri set Bucklew’s execution date as May 21, 2014. Bucklew was a plaintiff in a pending 42 U.S.C. 1983 action (Zink) that challenged Missouri’s method of execution. The district court tentatively dismissed that action on May 2. Bucklew filed another Section 1983 action on May 9, asserting that the method of lethal injection would violate his Eighth Amendment rights because of the unique risk that his serious medical condition (cavernous hemangioma) will result in excruciating pain. On May 16, the district court finally dismissed the Zink complaint. On May 19, the court denied a stay of execution and dismissed Bucklew’s Eighth Amendment claim. On May 21, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay pending appeal. The Eighth Circuit then reversed the dismissal: it was not “patently obvious” that Bucklew could not prevail. His as-applied challenge is distinguishable from Zink’s facial challenge. Bucklew’s allegations of a substantial risk of serious and imminent harm were far more specific than those allegations. There was also support for Bucklew’s allegations that the state unreasonably refused to change its regular method of execution to a “feasible, readily implemented” alternative that -would “significantly reduce” the substantial risk of pain.
Court Description: Prisoner case - habeas - Death Penalty. This opinion should be read in conjunction with the court en banc's March 6, 2015 opinion in No. 14-2220, Zink v. Lombardi,as Bucklew's due process claim is not materially different than the due process claims raised in Zink and is resolved in the opinion in that case. With respect to Bucklew's "as applied" Eighth Amendment claim arising out of his congenital cavernous hemangioma, the district court erred in dismissing the complaint sua sponte as it was not patently obvious that Bucklew could not prevail and would not amend his as-applied challenge to include a plausible allegation of a feasible and more humane alternative method of execution; on remand, the pleadings should be narrowly tailored and expeditiously conducted to address only those issues that are essential to resolving Bucklew's as-applied Eighth Amendment challenge; at the earliest possible time Bucklew must identify a feasible, readily implemented alternative procedure that will significantly reduce a substantial risk of severe pain and that the State has refused to adopt. Judge Bye, with whom Judges Murphy and Kelly join, concurring in the result. Judge Shepherd, with whom Judges Murphy and Bye join, concurring.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.