Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Proceeding under 42 U.S.C. �1983, Lamont Reese seeks a stay of his execution scheduled for June 20, 2006. He attacks the method of execution by injection as administered in Texas as cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. The suit does not challenge the conviction or sentence of death. Reese requests “a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from injecting him with three chemicals that (1) unnecessarily increase the risk of torture during the execution; and (2) are superfluous and wholly unnecessary to effect lethal injection. Second, [Reese] requests that this Court enter an injunction prohibiting Defendants from utilizing any invasive medical procedures to gain venous access for the lethal injection, at least until and unless he is made aware under what circumstances and standards those procedures will occur and those standards are sufficient to protect [his] medical needs.” HOLDING:Denied. Reese contends that Harris v. Johnson, 376 F.3d 414 (5th Cir. 2004), and White v. Johnson, 429 F.3d 572 (5th Cir. 2005) have been undermined by the Supreme Court’s decision in Hill v. McDonough, No. 05-8794 (June 12, 2006). The court disagrees. Hill was not focused on the timing of the filing, the question faced here. Further, the court finds it significant that the Hill court cited this court’s decision in White v. Johnson, 429 F.3d 572 (5th Cir. 2005), as one of “a number of federal courts [that] have invoked their equitable powers to dismiss suits . . . filed too late in the day.” There, the court dismissed White’s similar challenge, filed several years after his conviction became final on direct review, because he could have brought the claim much earlier. Reese’s late claim is no different than the late claim in White, the court finds. Hill has not undermined the decisions of this court insisting upon a timely filing or that until Hill the suit could not have been brought. Under Hill, a plaintiff cannot wait until a stay must be granted to enable it to develop facts and take the case to trial not when there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay. The court finds this suit with its request for equitable relief to be untimely. OPINION:Per curiam; Higginbotham, Davis and Prado, J.J.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.