While direct appeals are normally limited to just one and automatically stay the execution of the death sentence, Section 1983 lawsuits are unlimited, but the petitioner will be granted a stay of execution only if the court believes he has a likelihood of success on the merits.
(meta data) TITLE:  Glossip v. Gross :: 576 U.S. ___ (2015) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center Log In Sign Up Find a Lawyer Ask a Lawyer Research the Law Law Schools Laws & Regs Legal Marketing Law Firm Websites Law Firm SEO Lawyer Directory Local Marketing Other Marketing Solutions # Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. ___ (2015) Audio & Media Opinion (Alito) Concurrence (Thomas) Concurrence (Scalia) Dissent (Sotomayor) Dissent (Breyer) Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations After Oklahoma adopted lethal injection as its method of execution, it used a three-drug protocol of sodium thiopental (a barbiturate) to induce a state of unconsciousness; a paralytic agent to inhibit all muscular-skeletal movements; and potassium chloride to induce cardiac arrest. In 2008 the Supreme Court held that that protocol did not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments. Anti-death-penalty advocates pressured pharmaceutical companies to prevent sodium thiopental and another barbiturate (pentobarbital) from being used in executions. Oklahoma substituted a 500-milligram dose of midazolam, a sedative. Oklahoma death-row inmates filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, arguing that a 500-milligram dose of midazolam will not render them unable to feel pain associated with administration of the second and third drugs. The Tenth Circuit and Supreme Court affirmed rejection of their request for a preliminary injunction. The prisoners failed to establish that any risk of harm was substantial when compared to a known and available alternative method of execution. The Eighth Amendment requires a prisoner to plead and prove a known and available alternative. The state's expert presented persuasive testimony that a 500-milligram dose of midazolam would make it virtually certain that an inmate will not feel pain associated with the second and third drugs; the prisoners' experts acknowledged that they had no contrary scientific proof. It is not dispositive that midazolam is not recommended or approved for use as the sole anesthetic during painful surgery. The Court upheld a conclusion that the safeguards adopted by Oklahoma to ensure proper administration of midazolam minimize any risk that the drug will not operate as intended. #### Primary Holding A death row inmate seeking an injunction under the Eighth Amendment against the use of a certain execution method must show that the risk of harm caused by the method is substantial in comparison to a known and available alternative. The method is constitutional if the state has used adequate safeguards to minimize risks. Read more Opinions Audio & Media Opinion (Alito) Concurrence (Thomas) Concurrence (Scalia) Dissent (Sotomayor) Dissent (Breyer) Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources. Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship. Receive free daily summaries of US Supreme Court opinions. Email * Download PDF First Party Richard E. Glossip, et al. Second Party Kevin J. Gross, et al. Official Citation 576 U.S. __ (2015) Docket No. 14-7955 January 22, 2015 April 28, 2015 June 28, 2015 #### Contributors Chris Skelton Mountain View, CA #### Search this Case Google Scholar Google Books Legal Blogs Google Web Bing Web Google News Google News Archive Yahoo! News Find a Lawyer #### Lawyers - Get Listed Now! Get a free directory profile listing Ask a Lawyer Question: Add details
dev01543
Capital punishment in the United States
Legal process.:Section 1983.
If the federal court refuses to issue a writ of "habeas corpus", the death sentence ordinarily becomes final for all purposes. In recent times, however, prisoners have postponed execution through another avenue of federal litigation; the Civil Rights Act of 1871 – codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – allows complainants to bring lawsuits against state actors to protect their federal constitutional and statutory rights. 
