Adams v. Kasich (In re Ohio Execution Protocol Litig.), 12–3035.

Decision Date13 January 2012
Docket NumberNo. 12–3035.,12–3035.
Citation671 F.3d 601
PartiesIn re OHIO EXECUTION PROTOCOL LITIGATION.Bennie Adams, et al., Plaintiffs,Charles Lorraine, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. John Kasich, Governor, State of Ohio; Gary Mohr, Director, ODRC; Donald Morgan, Warden, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility; Anonymous Execution Team Members 1–50, c/o Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, Defendants–Appellants.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREBefore: NORRIS, SUHRHEINRICH and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Before this Court is the State of Ohio's emergency motion to vacate the district court's order staying the execution of Charles Lorraine, scheduled for January 18, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. On January 11, 2012, District Judge Gregory Frost issued a lengthy written opinion granting the stay, based on persistent failure or refusal of the State to follow its own written execution protocol.

Based upon the analysis of the district court's January 11, 2012 Opinion and Order granting a preliminary injunction and a stay of execution, as well as the district court's July 8, 2011 Opinion and Order entered in this same litigation and reported at 801 F.Supp.2d 623 (S.D.Ohio 2011), we conclude that the State's arguments in support of the emergency motion to vacate the stay are not well-taken. We agree with the district court that the State should do what it agreed to do: in other words it should adhere to the execution protocol it adopted. As the district court found, whether slight or significant deviations from the protocol occur, the State's ongoing conduct requires the federal courts to monitor every execution on an ad hoc basis, because the State cannot be trusted to fulfill its otherwise lawful duty to execute inmates sentenced to death.

The State's emergency motion to vacate the stay is DENIED. The stay will remain in place until further order from the district court on the hearing set for February 24, 2012.

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Phillips v. DeWine
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • November 2, 2016
    ...execution on an ad hoc basis” because Ohio could not be “trusted to fulfill its otherwise lawful duty....” In re Ohio Execution Protocol Litig. , 671 F.3d 601, 602 (6th Cir. 2012). HB 663 will impede both discovery and monitoring of the violations that we condemned.The lead opinion affirms ......
  • Zink v. Lombardi
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • March 6, 2015
    ...Cooey v. Kasich, 801 F.Supp.2d 623 (S.D.Ohio 2011) ; In re Ohio Execution Protocol Litig., 840 F.Supp.2d 1044 (S.D.Ohio), aff'd, 671 F.3d 601 (6th Cir.2012). The Ohio district court reasoned that because certain “core” provisions of the State's execution protocol were the “precise procedura......
  • In re Ohio Execution Protocol Litig.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • January 26, 2017
    ...by Judge Frost. See, e.g., In re: Ohio Execution Protocol Litig (Lorraine) , 840 F.Supp.2d 1044, 1059 (S.D. Ohio 2012), aff'd., 671 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 2012). Defendants do not contest this element.III. Balance of EquitiesIn some cases seeking preliminary injunctive relief from execution, th......
  • In re Ohio Execution Protocol Litig.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • February 22, 2018
    ...law of the case principles outlined above to its asserted application here, the Court deals first with In re: Ohio Execution Protocol Litig. (Lorraine), 671 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 2012). That published decision of the Sixth Circuit is a three-paragraph order denying the State of Ohio's emergenc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT