Phillips v. DeWine
Decision Date | 17 February 2015 |
Docket Number | Case No. 2:14–cv–2730. |
Parties | Ronald R. PHILLIPS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Mike DeWINE, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
Timothy F. Sweeney, Cleveland, OH, Lisa M. Lagos, Allen L. Bohnert, Office Of The Ohio Public Defender, Sharon A. Hicks, Federal Public Defender, Columbus, OH, for Plaintiffs.
Bridget C. Coontz, Brodi J. Conover, Tiffany L. Carwile, Ohio Attorney General's Office, Columbus, OH, for Defendants.
This matter is before the Court for consideration of the following filings:
(1) a motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Mike DeWine and John Kasich (ECF No. 13), a memorandum in opposition filed by Plaintiffs (ECF No. 16), and a reply memorandum filed by DeWine and Kasich (ECF No. 19); and
(2) a motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Gary Mohr and Donald Morgan (ECF No. 14), a memorandum in opposition filed by Plaintiffs (ECF No. 17), and a reply memorandum filed by Mohr and Morgan (ECF No. 18).
For the reasons that follows, this Court GRANTS the motions to dismiss. (ECF Nos. 13, 14.)
Plaintiffs Ronald R. Phillips, Grady Brinkley, Raymond Tibbetts, and Robert Van Hook are inmates who have been sentenced to death by the State of Ohio. They have brought this action to challenge the constitutionality of a soon-to-be-effective statutory scheme that addresses confidentiality of information concerning lethal injection in Ohio. This statutory framework, enacted via Substitute House Bill No. 663 (“H.B. 663”) in November 2014, amends Ohio Revised Code § 149.43 and creates two new statutes, Ohio Revised Code §§ 2949.221 and 2949.222.
The amendment to § 149.43 modified the definition of “public record” so that it does not include “information and records that are made confidential, privileged, and not subject to disclosure under divisions (B) and (C) of section 2949.221 of the Revised Code.” Ohio Rev.Code § 149.43(A)(1)(cc).
The newly created § 2949.221 provides:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Phillips v. DeWine
...raised in Mohr's and Morgan's motion to dismiss.The district court granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss. Phillips v. DeWine , 92 F.Supp.3d 702, 705, 718 (S.D. Ohio 2015). After assuming for the sake of argument that the Eleventh Amendment did not bar the claims against Governor Kasich......
-
In re Ohio Execution Protocol Litig., Case No. 2:11-cv-1016
...a protective order in this case for that information. Judge Frost upheld the constitutionality of the new statutes (Phillips v. DeWine, 92 F. Supp. 3d 702 (S.D. Ohio 2015), granted the protective order (ECF No. 629), certified that order for interlocutory appeal, and stayed the case pending......
-
In re Ohio Execution Protocol Litig., Case No. 2:11-cv-1016
...a protective order in this case for that information. Judge Frost upheld the constitutionality of the new statutes, Phillips v. DeWine, 92 F. Supp. 3d 702 (S.D. Ohio 2015), granted the protective order (ECF No. 629, PageID 19409), certified that order for interlocutory appeal, and stayed th......
-
Kelley v. Johnson
...Cir.2014) ; Sepulvado v. Jindal, 729 F.3d 413 (5th Cir.2013) ; Valle v. Singer, 655 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir.2011) ; Phillips v. DeWine , 92 F.Supp. 3d 702 (S.D.Ohio 2015) ; Pardo v. State, 108 So.3d 558 (Fla.2012) ; 496 S.W.3d 362Lockett v. Evans, 330 P.3d 488 (Okla.2014) ; West v. Schofield, 4......