Hill v. Crosby
| Decision Date | 24 January 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 06-10621.,06-10621. |
| Citation | 437 F.3d 1084 |
| Parties | Clarence E. HILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James V. CROSBY, Jr., Charlie Crist, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
D. Todd Doss, D. Todd Doss, P.A., Lake City, FL, for Hill.
Carolyn M. Snurkowski, Fla. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, FL, for Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.
Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, and TJOFLAT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Clarence Edward Hill has been convicted of capital murder in Florida and sentenced to death. His execution is scheduled for today, January 24, 2006, at 6:00 p.m. On January 20, 2006, he applied to this court for leave to file a second and successive habeas petition in an effort to forestall his execution. We denied his application in an order entered earlier today. At the same time, we denied his application under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1651 and 2251 for a stay of his execution.
Also on January 20, 2006, appellant brought this suit for declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. He contends that death by lethal injection causes pain and unnecessary suffering and thus constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. He seeks a permanent injunction barring his execution. On January 21, 2006, the district court issued an order dismissing appellant's complaint on the ground that the complaint "is the `functional equivalent' of a successive habeas petition," and that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it in the absence of an order from the court of appeals granting appellant leave to file a successive petition.
The district court relied on as authority for its ruling our decision in Robinson v. Crosby, 358 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir.2004), which, as the district court properly observed, dealt with "the very issue" appellant's complaint presents here. Appellant now appeals the district court's order, and he asks that we stay his execution pending our disposition of his appeal.
It is clear to us that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider appellant's claim because it is the functional equivalent of a successive habeas petition and he failed to obtain leave of this court to file it. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). And as the panel observed in Robinson, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rutherford v. Crosby
...U.S.C. § 2244(b). That decision of the district court is correct as a matter of circuit law. See Hill v. Crosby, 437 F.3d 1084, No. 06-10621, 2006 WL 163607 at *1 (11th Cir. Jan. 24, 2006), cert. granted, No. 05-8794, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 1189, ___ L.Ed.2d ___, 2006 WL 171583 (Jan. 25, 2......
-
Rutherford v. McDonough
...§ 2254 proceeding and comply with the restrictions on second or successive habeas petitions set out in § 2244(b). See Hill v. Crosby, 437 F.3d 1084 (11th Cir.2006), rev'd sub nom., Hill v. McDonough, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 2096, 165 L.Ed.2d 44 (2006); Robinson v. Crosby, 358 F.3d 1281, 128......
-
Hill v. McDonough
...is not necessary to reject Nelson to do so. The equities and merits of Hill's underlying action are not before this Court. Pp. 583-585. 437 F. 3d 1084, reversed and KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CI......
-
Hill v. McDonough
...WL 167585, at *2-*3 (N.D.Fla. Jan. 21, 2006). On appeal, this court affirmed, denying Hill's application for a stay. Hill v. Crosby, 437 F.3d 1084, 1085 (11th Cir.2006). The Supreme Court stayed the execution, granted certiorari and reversed, holding that Hill's claim could properly be brou......
-
Against Acting 'humanely' - Michael Goldberg
...his company's direct current over rival George Westinghouse's alternating current. Id. 18. 126 S. Ct. 2096 (2006), rev'g Hill v. Crosby, 437 F.3d 1084 (2006). 19. Id. at 2099-2100. 20. McNichol, supra note 17. 21. This point is key to the rest of my Article, and I am deeply indebted to Prof......
-
Legal injection: the Supreme Court enters the lethal injection debate: Hill v. McDonough.
...See id. (25.) See Hill v. State, 921 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 2006). (26.) Hill, 126 S. Ct. at 2100. (27.) Id. at 2101. (28.) See Hill v. Crosby, 437 F.3d 1084, 1085 (11th Cir. (29.) Hill, 126 S. Ct. at 2096. (30.) See id. at 2101 (citing Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004)). (31.) Id. (int......