Jones, Jr. v. Kelley, No. 17-1849 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseJack Harold Jones, Jr. appealed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction, and moved for a stay of execution. Jones argued that, because of his specific medical conditions, the administration of the ADC's lethal-injection protocol will inflict cruel and unusual punishment on him in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court concluded that Jones's delay in bringing his as-applied claim was sufficient reason to deny a stay; Jones failed to establish a significant possibility that he could show that, as applied to him, the State's lethal injection protocol creates a demonstrated risk of severe pain; and Jones failed to establish that there was a significant possibility that he could identify an alternative method of execution that is feasible, readily implemented, and in fact significantly reduces a substantial risk of severe pain. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's order and denied a stay of execution.
Court Description: Per Curiam. Before Riley, Gruender, and Benton, Circuit Judges] Death Penalty - Civil Rights. In an as-applied challenge to Arkansas lethal-injection protocol, Jones argues his specific medical conditions creates a risk that the protocol will affect him differently and will cause him severe pain in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. He seeks a stay of execution. The request for a stay is denied because of his delay in bringing this challenge; the district court did not clearly error in finding Jones failed to establish a significant possibility that he could show a demonstrated risk of severe pain; and the district court did not clearly err in finding Jones failed to establish there was a significant possibility of identifying a feasible, readily implemented alternative method of execution. The order of the district court is affirmed and the stay of execution is denied. [ April 21, 2017
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.