Hill v. McDonough

In 1983, Clarence Hill (plaintiff) was sentenced to death for first-degree murder in Florida. By early 2000, Hill’s first federal habeas corpus petition was dismissed. At that time, Florida law specified that a person’s death sentence would occur through lethal injection, unless the person chose to be electrocuted. The law did not specify which lethal-injection procedure would be used, and the Florida Department of Corrections did not implement a specific lethal-injection protocol. In November 2005, Florida’s governor signed Hill’s death warrant, and Hill promptly filed a postconviction petition in state court, raising an Eighth Amendment argument that the three-drug lethal-injection procedure that the government (defendant) would likely use had a high risk of inflicting severe pain. Hill alleged that the first drug injected would not be a sufficient anesthetic, and he likely would remain conscious as the second and third drugs paralyzed him and inflicted a fatal heart attack. Florida state courts rejected Hill’s postconviction petition as a successive, procedurally barred petition. Hill filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in federal district court that sought an injunction preventing the government from using the three-drug lethal-injection procedure. The district court construed Hill’s § 1983 action as a habeas corpus petition and dismissed it as an improperly filed successive petition. On the day of Hill’s scheduled execution, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The United States Supreme Court issued a temporary stay of Hill’s execution and granted his petition for certiorari. The government argued that Hill’s § 1983 action should be construed as a habeas petition because it would functionally prevent Hill’s execution.