Miller v. Hamm
| Decision Date | 04 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2:22-cv-506-RAH [WO] |
| Parties | ALAN EUGENE MILLER, Plaintiff, v. JOHN Q. HAMM, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama |
ALAN EUGENE MILLER, Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN Q. HAMM, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, et al., Defendants.
No. 2:22-cv-506-RAH [WO]
United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
November 4, 2022
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
R. AUSTIN HUFFAKER, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I. INTRODUCTION
On September 22, 2022, the Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC) attempted to execute Alan Eugene Miller by lethal injection. Before the execution warrant expired at midnight, the ADOC terminated its execution efforts because it had problems accessing Miller's veins to administer the lethal injection drugs. Before the ADOC terminated the execution, Miller says he experienced extreme pain and suffering, both physical and psychological, as execution team members repeatedly poked, prodded, and slapped various parts of his body for approximately 90 minutes to try to establish venous access. Twelve days later, the State of Alabama moved the Alabama Supreme Court to reset Miller's execution date on an expedited basis.
Miller does not challenge his underlying conviction or death sentence. Instead, he seeks to vindicate his right to be executed by nitrogen hypoxia under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
On August 22, 2022, Miller filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants John Q. Hamm, the Commissioner of the ADOC; Terry Raybon, the Warden at Holman; and Steve Marshall, Attorney General of the State of Alabama (collectively, the State or Defendants). All Defendants are sued in their official capacities.
In his Second Amended Complaint (the operative complaint) (Doc. 85), Miller alleges that the State violated his constitutional rights by failing to honor his election of a nitrogen hypoxia execution. Miller alleges that he timely made such an election in 2018, but the State cannot locate any record that he did so. Additionally, Miller asserts that a second attempt to execute him by lethal injection would violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution as well as the Alabama Constitution's prohibition on cruel or unusual punishment. He seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as nominal and punitive damages from Defendants Hamm and Raybon.
This matter is before the Court on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 99.) Miller filed a response in opposition, (Doc. 101), and the Defendants filed a reply, (Doc. 104). This matter is ripe for review.
For the following reasons, the Defendants' Motion is due to be granted in part and denied in part.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
The Court has original subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Personal jurisdiction and venue are uncontested, and the Court concludes that venue properly lies in the Middle District of Alabama. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss tests the sufficiency of the complaint against the legal standard set forth in Rule 8: “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). In ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept well-pled facts as true, but the court is not required to accept a plaintiff's legal conclusions. Id. at 664.
“Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 679 (citation omitted). The plausibility standard requires “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully.” Id. at 678. Conclusory allegations that fail to rise “above the speculative level” are insufficient to meet the plausibility standard. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. This pleading standard “does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,' but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Indeed, “[a] pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions' or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.'” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). It is the plaintiff's responsibility to allege sufficient facts to support his claims. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
IV. BACKGROUND
When ruling on a motion to dismiss, the Court accepts as true the Second Amended Complaint's factual allegations and construes them in the light most favorable to Miller. See Boyd v. Warden, Holman Corr. Facility, 856 F.3d 854, 864 (11th Cir. 2017).
Certain relevant procedural, factual, and statutory background is set forth in the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Miller's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 62), and the Court will not repeat it here. Additional procedural history and facts pertinent to resolving the Motion to Dismiss are set forth below.
On August 22, 2022, Miller sued the Defendants in their official capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to his execution by lethal injection, which was set for September 22, 2022. On September 19, 2022, this Court preliminarily enjoined the Defendants from executing Miller by any method other than nitrogen hypoxia. In its Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court concluded it was substantially likely that Miller timely elected nitrogen hypoxia, Miller was substantially likely to succeed on the merits of his equal protection and due process claims, Miller likely faced irreparable injury without an injunction, and the equities weighed in Miller's favor. The Defendants appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and they filed a Motion to Stay this Court's injunction pending appeal in both this Court and the Eleventh Circuit. This Court denied the Motion to Stay on September 21, 2022. (Doc. 70.) On September 22, 2022, the Eleventh Circuit denied the Motion to Stay filed in that court, upholding this Court's preliminary injunction on equal protection grounds and declining to address the due process claim. See Order at 9 & n.2, 15, Miller v. Comm'r, Ala. Dep't of Corr., No. 22-13136-P (11th Cir. Sept. 22, 2022).
In the afternoon of September 22, 2022, the Defendants filed an application in the United States Supreme Court to vacate this Court's injunction. At approximately 9:00 p.m. that evening, the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, vacated this Court's injunction without explanation. See Hamm v. Miller, No. 22A258, 2022
WL 4391940, at *1 (U.S. Sept. 22, 2022). Thereafter, the ADOC attempted to execute Miller by lethal injection. However, the ADOC terminated its execution efforts sometime before midnight because it was unable to establish venous access. Much of the Second Amended Complaint centers on what Miller says occurred during the ADOC's unsuccessful attempt to execute him.
At approximately 9:55 p.m. on September 22, 2022, over a dozen ADOC correctional officers walked Miller from the execution holding cell to the execution chamber at Holman. Several guards remained in the execution chamber during the execution attempt. There was a clock in the execution chamber that Miller could sometimes, but not always, see. Once inside the execution chamber, one of the guards asked Miller to lie down on the execution gurney, which Miller did. At approximately 10:15 p.m., guards began to strap Miller into the gurney. Because Miller is apparently shorter than the height the gurney was designed for, his arms were raised into a stress position above his head in order to be strapped into the gurney's arm rests. According to Miller, this position immediately caused him pain in his chest, neck, and arms.
After Miller was strapped into the gurney, two men in medical scrubs walked into the execution chamber. A third man in medical scrubs joined later. According to Miller, these men punctured his skin multiple times and for approximately 90 minutes in an attempt to find a vein. Miller identifies the men by the color of their
scrubs because the Defendants have not revealed the men's names: Aqua Scrubs, Green Scrubs, and Navy Scrubs. The men in scrubs first tried to find a vein in the elbow pit (the inner right arm inside the elbow) of Miller's right arm. Green Scrubs tied an “extremely tight” torniquet around Miller's right bicep and slapped Miller's elbow pit for long periods, and Aqua Scrubs punctured Miller's right elbow pit in multiple locations. (Doc. 85 at 25.) During the “repeated attempts” to find a vein in Miller's right elbow pit, Miller could “feel his veins being pushed around inside his body by needles, which caused him great pain and fear.” (Id. at 26.) After one of the needle punctures, Miller told the men in scrubs that what they were doing was excruciating, but the men did not respond.
After these attempts to find a vein failed, the men in scrubs tried to find a vein in Miller's right hand. Aqua Scrubs punctured Miller's skin in several places on his right hand. These efforts to find a vein were also unsuccessful.
The men in scrubs also tried to find a vein in Miller's left arm. Green Scrubs tied a torniquet, and Aqua Scrubs repeatedly punctured Miller's left elbow pit with needles. Miller “felt the needles going deeper in his body than ever before, which caused intense physical pain.” (Id. at 27.) Miller says he told the men in scrubs he could feel that they were not accessing his veins but rather were stabbing around his veins, but the men did not respond.
The men in scrubs then decided to try to find a vein in Miller's right foot. One of...
To continue reading
Request your trial