McGehee v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services, No. 19-1770 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiffs, Arkansas prisoners who are or were on death row for capital murder convictions, filed suit alleging that Arkansas's method of execution violated the Eighth Amendment. In an effort to obtain the necessary information about the existence of known and available alternatives that would significantly reduce a substantial risk of severe pain, they served subpoenas on several state correctional departments, including the NDCS. After the NDCS objected, the district court determined that the Eleventh Amendment did not categorically bar the subpoena. NDCS appealed. While the appeal was pending, the Arkansas district court dismissed the inmates' suit and the Nebraska Supreme Court ordered public disclosure of the documents.
The Eighth Circuit held that this case has been rendered moot where there is no effective relief that the court could grant because the materials at issue are already public. The court explained that requiring the return or destruction of the subpoenaed documents would provide no effective relief, and the court declined to do either. Finally, no exception to the mootness doctrine is applicable here.
Court Description: [Erickson, Author, with Kelly and Stras, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil Procedure. The State appealed the district court's order that the Eleventh Amendment did not categorically bar a subpoena filed by Arkansas death row inmates seeking information about Nebraska's execution process; while the appeal was pending, the Arkansas district court dismissed the inmates' suit and the Nebraska Supreme court ordered public disclosure of the documents. Held: there was no effective relief this court could grant as the materials were already public. The district court's order is vacated and the the matter is remanded with directions to dismiss the case.
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on August 6, 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.