Johnson v. Precythe, No. 17-2222 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
On remand from the Supreme Court for further consideration in light of Bucklew v. Precythe, 139 S. Ct. 1112 (2019), the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of the State's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court held that to prove a claim under the Eighth Amendment, a prisoner must prove two elements: first, that the State's method of execution presents a risk that is sure or very likely to cause serious illness or needless suffering, and give rise to sufficiently imminent dangers and, second, a feasible and readily implemented alternative method of execution that would significantly reduce a substantial risk of severe pain and that the state has refused to adopt without a legitimate penological reason.
Plaintiff filed suit against state officials, challenging the constitutionality of Missouri's method of execution as it applied to him. In this case, plaintiff failed to meet the second element where his claim fell squarely within the alternative holding of Bucklew that the Eighth Amendment does not require a State to adopt an untried and untested method of execution.
Court Description: [Colloton, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Beam, Circuit Judge] Prisoner case - Death Penalty. For the court's prior opinion in the matter, see Johnson v. Precythe, 901 F.3d 973 (8th Cir. 2018). On remand from the Supreme Court for further consideration in light of Bucklew v. Precythe, 139 S. Ct. 1112 (2019). To prove a claim under the Eighth Amendment, a prisoner must prove two elements: first, that the State's method of execution presents a risk that is sure or very likely to cause serious illness or needless suffering, and give rise to sufficiently imminent dangers and, second, a feasible and readily implemented alternative method of execution that would significantly reduce a substantial risk of severe pain and that the state has refused to adopt without a legitimate penological reason; here, in light of Bucklew, Johnson fails to meet the second element because his claim falls squarely within the alternative holding of Bucklew that the Eighth Amendment does not require a state to adopt an untried and untested method of execution (nitrogen-induced hypoxia); as a result, the district court's judgment dismissing the case for failure to state a claim is affirmed.
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on August 27, 2018.
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.