Zink v. Lombardi, No. 14-2220 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePreviously, Missouri’s lethal-injection protocol involved Sodium thiopental to anesthetize the prisoner and render him unconscious, pancuronium bromide to paralyze him and stop his breathing, and potassium chloride to stop the prisoner’s heart. In 2012, after sodium thiopental became unavailable, the state revised its protocol to use a single drug—propofol—as the lethal agent. While a challenge was pending, the state revised its protocol to use pentobarbital as the lethal agent. An amended complaint alleged that use of compounded pentobarbital constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, that the defendants are deliberately indifferent to the plaintiffs’ medical need for their executions not to inflict gratuitous pain, that use of compounded pentobarbital creates a significant risk of increased punishment over previous methods and amounts to ex post facto punishment, that the defendants deprived them of due process by not providing notice of the lethal injection methods, that the defendants deprived them of equal protection by deviating from execution protocol in certain instances, that the defendants violated their First Amendment rights by refusing to disclose the identities of the pharmacy that compounds the pentobarbital and its suppliers, and that the defendants violated federal laws by soliciting and using the compounded pentobarbital in executions. The court dismissed all claims except for that alleging “cruel and unusual punishment” in violation of the Eighth Amendment and its state equivalent. The prisoners’ concession that “other methods of lethal injection . . . would be constitutional” did not suffice to state a claim. The Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Court Description: Prisoner case - habeas - Death Penalty. The Missouri prisoners' second amended complaint failed to adequately allege that Missouri's lethal-injection protocol created a substantial risk of severe pain because none of the alleged potentialities the prisoners identified relating to compounded penobarbital rise to the level of "sure or very likely" to cause serious harm or severe pain; even if one of the harms identified were to occur, the prisoners offer nothing in their pleading to support the allegation that it would be more than an isolated incident, and an isolated incident, while regrettable, would not result in an Eighth Amendment violation; the claim, therefore is inadequately pled as a matter of law, and the district court did not err in dismissing it; the existence of an alternative method of execution is a necessary element of an Eighth Amendment claim and this element must be pleaded adequately in the complaint; here,the second amended complaint merely conceded that other methods the Department of Corrections could choose would be constitutional, and this concession, without additional factual enhancement, is insufficient to allege the necessary element of the existence of an alternative method; in sum, without a plausible allegation of a feasible alternative method of execution that would significantly reduce a substantial risk of serious pain, or a purposeful design by the State to inflict unnecessary pain, the plaintiff prisoners have not stated an Eighth Amendment claim based on the State's use of compounded pentobarbital in executions, and the district court did not err in dismissing the prisoners' Eighth Amendment claim; the prisoners have not pleaded that the use of pentobarbital will result in unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain, and they have failed to state an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference to medical needs claim; where only the mode of execution has changed, with no allegation of superadded punishment or superior alternatives, the Ex Post Facto Clause is not implicated; prisoners failed to show that changes to the execution protocol deprived them of the timely and adequate notice needed to litigate the lawfulness of the procedures; the prisoners' allegations that the State violates its own execution protocol by executing prisoners while legal actions are pending fails to state a claim under the Equal Protection Clause; the State's decision to carry out a lawful execution when there is no judicial stay in place does not burden a prisoner's rights under the Eighth Amendment or other constitutional provision; the prisoners failed to state a claim of qualified right of public access to information regarding the source of the compounded pentobarbital to be used in their executions because they did not plausibly allege a history of openness to the general public; challenges to use of compounded pentobarbital under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and the Controlled Substances Act rejected as there is no private right of action under the statutes and the prisoners cannot use the Missouri Administrative Procedures Act to allege the denial of a private legal right under the federal statutes when the federal statutes themselves do not create such a private legal right. Judge Bye, with whom Judges Murphy and Kelly join, dissenting. Judge Shepherd, dissenting in part. [ March 05, 2015
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.