Hobbs v. Jones

• Citation: 412 S.W.3d 844,2012 Ark. 293
• Decision Date: 22 June 2012
• Docket Number: No. 11–1128.,11–1128.
• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas
• Parties: Ray HOBBS, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction; and Arkansas Department of Correction, Appellants/Cross–Appellees v. Jack Harold JONES; Marcel Williams; Frank Williams; Jason McGehee; Don Davis; Bruce Ward; Stacey Johnson; Alvin Jackson; Kenneth Williams; and Terrick Nooner, Appellees/Cross–Appellants.

2012 Ark. 293

412 S.W.3d 844

Ray HOBBS, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction; and Arkansas Department of Correction, Appellants/Cross–Appellees

v.Jack Harold JONES; Marcel Williams; Frank Williams; Jason McGehee; Don Davis; Bruce Ward; Stacey Johnson; Alvin Jackson; Kenneth Williams; and Terrick Nooner, Appellees/Cross–Appellants.

No. 11–1128.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

June 22, 2012.

Held Unconstitutional

Ark. Code Ann. § 5–4–617.

Dustin McDaniel, Atty. Gen., C. Joseph Cordi, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for Appellants.

Scott W. Braden, Josh Lee, Dale E. Adams, Jeff Rosenzweig, Deborah R. Sallings, Little Rock, for Appellees.

JIM GUNTER, Justice.

Appellants/cross-appellees, the Arkansas Department of Correction and its director, Ray Hobbs, and appellees/cross-appellants, a group of several prisoners awaiting execution on Arkansas's death row, appeal an order of the Pulaski County Circuit Court granting in part and denying in part cross-motions for summary judgment. We have jurisdiction over this appeal as it involves issues pertaining to the interpretation or construction of the Arkansas Constitution. See Ark. Sup.Ct. R. 1–2(a)(1) (2011). We affirm the circuit court's order to the extent it declared Ark.Code Ann. § 5–4–617 (Supp.2011), unconstitutional and found that certain claims presented by the prisoners were moot. We reverse the circuit court's order striking language from the statute and granting injunctive relief.

On March 8, 2010, Jack Harold Jones, a prisoner incarcerated on Arkansas's death row, filed suit against Ray Hobbs, in his official capacity as Director of the Arkansas Department of Correction, and the Arkansas Department of Correction (hereinafter collectively referred to as “ADC”). Jones asserted that the Method of Execution Act of 2009 (“MEA”), codified at Ark.Code Ann. § 5–4–617, violates the separation-of-powers doctrine in article 4 of the Arkansas Constitution. Jones was scheduled to be executed on March 16, 2010. He maintained that his claim was timely because this court had only recently held that the MEA was retroactively applicable to currently incarcerated death-row inmates. Jones asked the court to grant preliminary injunctive relief to stay his execution during the pendency of the case, to enter declaratory judgment that Jones's execution pursuant to the MEA was unconstitutional, and to grant permanent injunctive relief barring Jones's execution until passage of a new statute incorporating standards to satisfy the Arkansas Constitution.

On July 29, 2010, Jones filed an amended complaint, listing a total of six claims: (1) that the MEA was an unconstitutional violation of the separation-of-powers doctrine; (2) that his execution would violate the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act (FDCA), codified at 21 U.S.C. §§ 301 et seq., because the ADC lacked a valid prescription for the drugs it intended to use during Jones's execution; (3) that his execution would violate the FDCA because the drugs the ADC intended to use had not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA); (4) that his execution would violate the Federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), codified at 21 U.S.C. §§ 801 et seq., because the ADC lacked a valid prescription for the drugs it intended to use during his execution; (5) that his execution would violate the CSA because the ADC staff were to administer controlled substances to Jones without proper registration; and (6) that his execution would violate the Nurse Practices Act (NPA), codified at Ark.Code Ann. § 17–87–101, because the ADC intended to use lay persons to administer the drugs during execution. Jones again sought declaratory and injunctive relief. With permission of the circuit court, nine other death-row inmates, including Stacy Eugene Johnson, Alvin Jackson, Kenneth Williams, Bruce Earl Ward, Jason McGehee, Don W. Davis, Marcel Williams, Frank Williams Jr.,¹ and Terrick Nooner (hereinafter collectively referred to with Jones as “the prisoners”), subsequently filed complaints in intervention asserting substantially the same claims and requesting the same relief as Jones in his amended complaint.

On August 17, 2010, ADC filed a motion to dismiss the prisoners' amended complaints on the basis that they failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). It argued that dismissal was appropriate because the lethal-injection statute set forth general execution provisions but left the details to the director of the ADC; because the CSA and the FDCA were not enacted to regulate capital punishment and did not authorize a private cause of action; and because the NPA did not govern the administration of lethal drugs during execution. Following a hearing, the circuit court entered an order on December 16, 2010, granting ADC's motion to dismiss with regard to the FDCA, CSA, and NPA. Accordingly, it dismissed claims two, three, four, five, and six of the prisoners' amended complaints. It denied ADC's motion as to the separation-of-powers claim.

On January 24, 2011, the prisoners filed a supplemental complaint arguing that the ADC intended to execute them using “chemicals obtained from an overseas driving school purporting to distribute drugs from a non-FDA approved manufacturing source.” The prisoners alleged that the ADC refused to disclose any information about the chemicals or how they were procured. The prisoners added three claims: (1) that use of non-FDA approved chemicals purchased from a foreign driving school violated the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment in the Eighth Amendment and article 2, section 9 of the Arkansas Constitution (claim seven); (2) that the ADC was suppressing information necessary to scrutinize the identity, strength, quality, and purity of the drugs obtained in violation of the due process clauses contained in the Fourteenth Amendment and article 2, section 8 of the Arkansas Constitution (claim eight); and (3) that use of the non-FDA approved drugs obtained from a foreign driving school would violate the prisoners' rights to due process and rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment (claim nine). The prisoners asked for temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief to enjoin the ADC from executing prisoners with the non-FDA approved chemicals and declaratory relief. On February 16, 2011, ADC moved to dismiss claims eight and nine as set forth in the supplemental complaint on the basis that the prisoners had access to the courts, particularly the circuit court involved in this litigation, and that the prisoners failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The circuit court granted ADC's motion to dismiss with regard to claim eight but denied its request to dismiss claim nine.

ADC filed a motion for summary judgment on May 4, 2011, asserting that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the three remaining claims alleged by the prisoners. Specifically, it maintained that claims seven and nine failed because the prisoners had not and could not provide any evidence that the use of the non-FDA approved chemicals created any substantial risk of serious harm. Further, the ADC contended that with regard to claim one, the facial challenge to the MEA on the basis of separation of powers, it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the statute could be applied constitutionally and provided sufficient guidance to executive officials in administering executions. The prisoners filed a cross-motion for summary judgment as to claim one regarding the constitutionality of the MEA on May 31, 2011, asserting that the MEA delegates policymaking discretion to the ADC director without setting forth reasonable standards for the exercise of that discretion in violation of the separation-of-powers clause of the Arkansas Constitution.

Thereafter, on July 21, 2011, ADC filed a second motion for summary judgment asking the court to enter judgment as a matter of law as to claims seven and nine on the basis of mootness. ADC claimed that it had disposed of all lethal chemicals that it had received from the overseas supplier, Dream Pharma, and that it was unable to obtain any additional chemicals from that supplier. Therefore, ADC asserted that there was no further controversy surrounding the lethal-injection chemicals obtained from Dream Pharma, which was the basis for claims seven and nine, and that those claims should be dismissed as moot.

The court held a hearing on the motions on August 15, 2011, and after hearing arguments from counsel, ruled from the bench that the cross-motions for summary judgment were granted in part and denied in part. It found the MEA unconstitutional and struck the language “any other chemical or chemicals, including but not limited to” from Ark.Code Ann. § 5–4–617(a)(2)(D). The circuit court ordered that only the words “saline solution” remain in § 5–4–617(a)(2)(D). In addition, the court granted in part and denied in part ADC's second motion for summary judgment, finding that the motion was granted in all respects except that ADC was enjoined from using any sodium thiopental obtained in violation of any state or federal law. The court issued a final, written order on August 29, 2011, reflecting its bench ruling. ADC filed a notice of appeal from the final order on September 1, 2011. The prisoners filed a notice of cross-appeal on September 22, 2011, from the final order as well as the December 16, 2010 order granting in part ADC's motion to dismiss claims two, three, four, five, and six; discovery orders entered on December 16, 2010, and October 20, 2010; and the April 7, 2011 order granting in part ADC's motion to dismiss claim eight.²

I. Constitutionality of Ark.Code Ann. § 5–4–617

For its first point on appeal, ADC maintains that the circuit court erred in finding that Ark.Code Ann. § 5–4–617 is facially unconstitutional and erred in striking a portion of the statute. It contends that because ...