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

 

Hill v. McDonough

Docket No.: 05-8794
Certiorari Granted: 1/25/2006
Argued: April 26, 2006
Decided: June 12, 2006

Topics:

Civil Rights, Civil Rights Acts, Liability

PartyNames: Clarence E. Hill v. James R. McDonough, Interim Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
Petitioner: Clarence E. Hill
Respondent: James R. McDonough, Interim Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Clarence E. Hill
v.
James R. McDonough, Interim Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
547 U.S. 573 (2006)
Question Presented:

1. Whether a complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a death-sentenced state prisoner, who seeks to stay his execution in order to pursue a challenge to the chemicals utilized for carrying out the execution, is properly recharacterized as a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254? 2. Whether, under this Court's decision in Nelson, a challenge to a particular protocol the State plans to use during the execution process constitutes a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983?

Question:

Is a prisoner's challenge to a particular form of execution - but not to the execution sentence itself - the practical equivalent of a federal habeas corpus petition and therefore barred if the prisoner has already sought habeas review?

Note:

EXPEDITED BRIEFING SCHEDULE FORMERLY <span style="font-style: italic;">HILL v. CROSBY</span>

Holding: judgment reversed and remanded
Vote: 9-0
Read HILL V. MCDONOUGH opinion (PDF)
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)