Johnson v. Precythe, No. 17-2222 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's second amended complaint challenging the constitutionality of Missouri's method of execution as applied to him. The court held that plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to show a plausible allegation that the State's method of execution would cause him severe pain where the complaint and his expert's attached affidavit included factual allegations that a seizure will occur when the State injects pentobarbital and that such a seizure causes severe pain. Furthermore, plaintiff has alleged that execution by lethal gas was an alternative method of execution that was feasible, readily implemented, and would in fact significantly reduce a substantial risk of severe pain for plaintiff in his particular circumstances. Finally, the complaint was not barred by the statute of limitations. The panel remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Beam, Circuit Judge] Prisoner case - Death Penalty Matter. The district court erred in dismissing for failure to state a claim plaintiff's challenge to the constitutionality of Missouri's method of execution as applied to him; plaintiff's complaint and his medical doctor's attached affidavit include factual allegations that a seizure will occur when the State injects pentobarbital and that such a seizure causes great pain; these allegations are not legal conclusions, but statements of fact, and more detailed factual allegations are not required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12; additionally, plaintiff pleaded the second element of an Eighth Amendment claim - that there is an alternative method of execution that is feasible, readily implemented and which would, in fact, significantly reduce a substantial risk of pain; his claim that the use of nitrogen hypoxia would ameliorate the risk of severe pain because it would not trigger the seizures associated with pentobarbital was sufficient to state a claim that the alternative method would significantly reduce a substantial risk of sever pain for him in his particular circumstances; complaint was not subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) based on the statute of limitations. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on April 1, 2020.
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.