LANDRIGAN v. BREWER
| Decision Date | 26 October 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 10-99021.,10-99021. |
| Citation | 625 F.3d 1144 |
| Parties | Jeffrey Timothy LANDRIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Janice K. BREWER; et al., Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Dale A. Baich, Esquire, Keith Hilzendeger, Robin C. Konrad, Esquire, Sarah Elizabeth Stone, Karen Marie Wilkinson, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Jon M. Sands, Federal Public Defender, FPDAZ-Federal Public Defender's Office, Phoenix, AZ, Sylvia J. Lett, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDAZ-Federal Public Defender's Office, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kent Ernest Cattani, Chief Counsel, Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellants.
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00246-ROS, District of Arizona, Phoenix.
Before: PAMELA ANN RYMER, KIM McLANE WARDLAW, and WILLIAM A. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The State of Arizona appeals the district court's order granting a temporary restraining order enjoining the scheduled execution on October 26, 2010 of Arizona inmate Jeffrey Timothy Landrigan. 1 We cannot say the district court abused its discretion, and we affirm.
Landrigan filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 21, 2010, challenging the use of sodium thiopental from an unidentified foreign manufacturing source that is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). He maintains that this creates a substantial and unnecessary risk of serious pain during his execution in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Landrigan also claims that the state's refusal to disclose details about the source of the drug and its handling offends his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Although the state acknowledged that its source of sodium thiopental is foreign, it refused to supply details. The state's position is that Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 13-757(C) prohibits disclosure of the identity of people or entities who are involved in ancillary functions of an execution and information in records that would identify them, and that in any event its protocol-which is not challenged in this action-has safeguards sufficient to guard against an intolerable risk of harm.
Landrigan sought post-conviction relief in state court challenging Arizona's lethal injection protocol on state law grounds. Relief was denied on October 8, 2009, largely on the basis of Judge Wake's ruling in Dickens v. Brewer, No. CV-07-1770-PHX-NVW, 2009 WL 1904294 (D.Ariz. July 1, 2009), upholding the constitutionality of the protocol. 2 When the state moved in the Arizona Supreme Court for a warrant of execution, Landrigan opposed the motion in May 2010 on various grounds, including the pendency of appellate proceedings in Dickens. He supplemented his opposition by asserting that there was a nationwide shortage of sodium thiopental and asking the court to delay ruling on the warrant request until the state demonstrated that it had, or could legally obtain, the drugs necessary to carry out his execution consistent with Arizona's protocol. The Arizona Supreme Court issued a warrant on September 21, but directed the state to report by October 1 whether it possessed a sufficient quantity of all the necessary drugs. The state indicated that Arizona Department of Corrections (ADOC) had obtained the necessary supply. Landrigan then asked the Arizona Supreme Court to compel disclosure of information about the sodium thiopental that the state planned to use to implement his execution, as well as to stay the execution. On October 20, the Arizona Supreme Court declined relief without explanation.
Landrigan filed his federal complaint the next day. The day the complaint was filed, the district court issued an order requesting the state voluntarily to provide detailed information concerning the sodium thiopental it intends to use in Landrigan's execution. In default of providing the information, the court directed the state to explain why it would not provide the information or to explain why the information was not relevant to the disposition of a motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. The state did not produce the requested information. The court issued another order on October 23. In this order, the district court disagreed with the state's claim that Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 13-757(C) bars it from providing information about the source, labels, and lot numbers of the Department of Corrections's sodium thiopental supply; in the court's view, the statute applies only to individuals, not to entities. Further, the court noted that while the Eighth Amendment may not categorically prohibit the use of non-FDA approved drugs, to decide the case it must have some basis for comparing the effectiveness of the drug already obtained by the state to that of drugs manufactured by an FDA-approved source. Thus, the court concluded, it could not do without knowing the source of the drug the state proposed to use, its expiration date, the efficacy of the drug for its intended purpose, and all available documentation concerning the manufacturer and its process for producing sodium thiopental. For this reason, it ordered the state to disclose that information immediately.
In response, the state submitted a “Disclosure of Information/Motion to Reconsider” on October 24. In it, the state represented that its sodium thiopental is in 500 mg vials with an expiration date of May 2014. It also represented that “the process of shipping and receiving the chemicals was cleared and approved by U.S. Customs and FDA officials.” Beyond this, the state maintained that the court's October 23 order improperly engrafted a requirement that the state use FDA-approved drugs, and failed to address protections that are in place to ensure that an inmate is unconscious following administration of sodium thiopental. The state also adhered to its position that Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 13-757(C) preserves confidentiality of entities involved in functions ancillary to the execution process. Alternatively, the state requested permission to file the information required to be disclosed under seal instead of publicly, as the October 23 order directed. It moved to file under seal and for a protective order, 3 which Landrigan opposed.
On October 25, the district court denied the state's request to file under seal and granted a temporary injunction restraining the state from carrying out Landrigan's death sentence until further order of the court.
The court also ordered the state to disclose to Landrigan the documents provided to the court. The court reasoned that in the unique circumstances of this case, the state's refusal to provide discovery, that is, to provide...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
West v. Schofield
...three-drug protocol. Landrigan v. Brewer , No. CV-10-02246-PHX-ROS, 2010 WL 4269559, at *1–2 (D. Ariz. Oct. 25, 2010), aff'd , 625 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2010), and vacated , 562 U.S. 996, 131 S.Ct. 445, 178 L.Ed.2d 346 (Oct. 26, 2010). The inmate sought a stay of his execution on the grounds ......
-
LANDRIGAN v. BREWER
...KIM McLANE WARDLAW, and WILLIAM A. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. Concurrence by Judge WARDLAW; Dissent by Chief Judge KOZINSKI. Prior report: 625 F.3d 1144. ORDER A judge of this court sua sponte called for this case to be reheard en banc. A vote was taken, and a majority of the active judges o......
-
Creech v. Reinke
...likely to succeed in showing there was a substantial risk in administering the drug. Id. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in Landrigan v. Brewer, 625 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2010). However, the United States Supreme Court reversed, vacating the district court's decision, because it found that "specul......
-
Lopez v. Brewer
...the Eighth Amendment. See Towery v. Brewer, 672 F.3d 650 (9th Cir.2012); Beaty v. Brewer, 649 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir.2011); Landrigan v. Brewer, 625 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir.2010), vacated by––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 445, 178 L.Ed.2d 346 (2010). In this instance, I cannot help but concur in the majori......