Powell v. Thomas, No. 11-12613 (11th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, currently on death row, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, contending that the Alabama Department of Corrections' ("ADOC") recent change from sodium thipoental to pentobarbitol as the first three drugs used in the lethal injection protocol constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment and violated his rights protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. At issue was whether the district court erred in granting the motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds because, in rejecting petitioner's claim that the ADOC's lethal injection protocol violated the Eight Amendment, the district court relied on external evidence and dicta, and the change in lethal injection protocol was significant; and petitioner's claim regarding Alabama's secrecy and arbitrary changes also accrued when the ADOC changed the first drug in the protocol. The court held that the district court did not err in basing its conclusion on the binding precedent in Powell v. Thomas, and, in light of the binding precedent, the court rejected petitioner's attempt to relitigate the issue of whether the ADOC's action in changing the first drug in the lethal injection protocol was a "significant" change for purposes of McNair v. Allen. Therefore, the district court did not err in determining that petitioner's claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The court also held that petitioner failed to show how his claim about the secrecy surrounding the ADOC's recent change in lethal injection protocol was revived by the ADOC's 2011 switch in drugs and therefore, the district court did not err in finding petitioner's second claim for relief barred by the statute of limitations.
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More › You already receive new opinion summaries from Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
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.