Hill v. McDonough

Background

A man on Florida’s death row, Clarence Hill, sued state corrections officials under a federal civil rights law, arguing that the State’s likely three-drug lethal injection would leave him conscious and cause severe pain. Florida had changed its law to lethal injection and left implementation to the Department of Corrections, which had not disclosed a specific protocol. Hill first sought state postconviction relief and was denied; he then filed this §1983 action shortly before his scheduled execution. Lower courts treated his suit as a successive habeas petition and dismissed it.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether a challenge to execution procedures must be brought in habeas or could proceed as a civil rights suit. Relying on Nelson v. Campbell, the Court held Hill’s claim was like Nelson’s because an injunction against the particular procedure would not necessarily prevent the State from carrying out the death sentence. Hill conceded that other injection methods could be constitutional, and Florida law does not require the specific procedure. The Court rejected new, heightened pleading rules or a requirement that inmates identify a particular alternative method as a condition for §1983 relief.

Real world impact

As a result, inmates may bring Eighth Amendment challenges to how states plan to execute them under §1983 rather than being automatically routed into habeas. But a §1983 filing does not automatically delay execution: stays are equitable, require a strong showing of likely success, and courts may deny late or speculative suits. The Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit and sent the case back for further proceedings.