Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

Nelson v. Campbell

Docket No.: 03-6821
Argued: March 29, 2004
Decided: May 24, 2004

Topics:

Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts (42 USC 1983), Civil Rights, Civil Rights Acts, Liability, EPA, Eighth Amendment, Equal Protection Clause, Miranda, Section 1983, Title VII, capital murder, equitable relief, habeas, habeas corpus, harmless error, jury selection, murder, preliminary injunction, probable cause, racial discrimination, search and seizure

PartyNames: David L. Nelson v. Donal Campbell, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, et al.
Petitioner: David L. Nelson
Respondent: Donal Campbell, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, et al.

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Citation: CA 11, 347 F.3d 910 QUESTIONS PRESENTED: 1. Whether an action brought by a death-sentenced prisoner pursuant to 42U.S.C. § 1983, which does not attack a conviction or sentence, is - simply because the person is under a sentence of death - to be treated as a habeascorpus case subject to the restriction on successive petitions which categorically precludes review of any constitutional violation not related to innocence (as the Fourth, Fifth and El eventh Circuits hold), or can be maintained as § 1983 action (as the Sixth, Eighth and Ninth Circuits andseveral lower courts hold)?
Supreme Court Docket

David L. Nelson
v.
Donal Campbell, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, et al.
541 U.S. 637 (2004)
Consideration Limited:

Limited to the following question: Whether a complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 by a deathsentenced state prisoner, who seeks to stay his execution in order to pursue a challenge to the procedures for carrying out the execution, is properlyrecharacterized as a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254?

Question Presented:

: 1. Whether an action brought by a death-sentenced prisoner pursuant to 42U.S.C. § 1983, which does not attack a conviction or sentence, is - simply because the person is under a sentence of death - to be treated as a habeascorpus case subject to the restriction on successive petitions which categorically precludes review of any constitutional violation not related to innocence (as the Fourth, Fifth and El eventh Circuits hold), or can be maintained as § 1983 action (as the Sixth, Eighth and Ninth Circuits andseveral lower courts hold)? 2. Whether a cut-down procedure wh ich involves pain and mutilation, conducted prior to an execution by lethal injection, violates the EighthAmendment to the United States Constitution? CERT. GRANTED: 12/1/03 Limited to the following question: Whether a complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 by a deathsentenced state prisoner, who seeks to stay his execution in order to pursue a challenge to the procedures for carrying out the execution, is properlyrecharacterized as a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254?

Question:

Is a prisoner's appeal of the proposed procedure for his execution functionally equivalent to a habeas corpus petition and therefore barred by Title 28, Section 2254 of U.S. Code?

Note:

. CA 11, 347 F.3d 910

Nelson v. Campbell
ORAL ARGUMENT

March 29, 2004

Holding: reversed and remanded
Decision: Decision: 9 votes for Nelson, 0 vote(s) against
Vote: 9-0
Opinion By:
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)