No. ________ IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ANTHONY BOYD, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON DUNN, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, et al., Respondent. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI JOHN C. LA LIBERTE* MATTHEW C. MOSCHELLA SHERIN AND LODGEN LLP 101 Federal Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 [email protected] [email protected] (617) 646-2000 *Counsel of Record October 19, 2017 BATEMAN & SLADE, INC. BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS QUESTIONS PRESENTED (CAPITAL CASE) 1. Do the Eleventh Circuit and the District Court’s decisions conflict with Supreme Court precedent set forth in Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35, 128 S. Ct. 1520 (2008) and Glossip v. Gross, 135 S. Ct. 2726, reh’g denied, 136 S. Ct. 20, 192 (2015)? 2. Did the Eleventh Circuit and the District Court erroneously dismiss Mr. Boyd’s complaint by concluding that he did not satisfy the standard for alleging an alternative method of execution set forth in Glossip? 3. Do the conclusions reached by the Eleventh Circuit, the District Court, and the majority in Arthur violate the Supremacy Clause? 4. Did the Eleventh Circuit, the District Court, and the Arthur majority incorrectly determine that an inmate must establish both lethal injection and electrocution are per se unconstitutional? 5. Did the District Court err by not granting Mr. Boyd leave to file an amended complaint? i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Counsel certifies that the following have an interest in the outcome of this case: (i) Boyd, Anthony – Appellant/Plaintiff; (ii) Davenport, Carter – Warden of Holman Correctional Facility, Alabama Department of Corrections; (iii) Dunn, Jefferson – Appellee, Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections. (iv) Myers, Walter – Appellee, Former Warden of Holman Correctional Facility, Alabama Department of Corrections; (v) Marshall, Steve – Appellee, Attorney General of Alabama; (vi) Strange, Luther – Appellee, Former Attorney General of Alabama; Counsel certifies that the following corporations may have an interest in the outcome of this case: None. JOHN C. LA LIBERTE MATTHEW C. MOSCHELLA SHERIN AND LODGEN LLP 101 Federal Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 [email protected] [email protected] (617) 646-2000 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTIONS PRESENTED ....................................... i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT .................................................. ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................... vii OPINIONS BELOW ....................................................1 JURISDICTION ..........................................................1 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED .......................................................1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ....................................3 A. State Court Proceedings ........................3 B. Alabama’s Method of Execution ............4 C. The District Court’s Judgment .............5 D. The Eleventh Circuit’s Opinion.............5 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION .........6 I. THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT MR. BOYD DID NOT SATISFY THE GLOSSIP STANDARD ...........................................7 iii A. The Panel’s Conclusion That The Alternative Method Must Be Currently Permitted By State Law Was Erroneous ............................7 B. Alabama’s Death Penalty Statute Permits The Use of Hanging Or The Firing Squad As Alternative Methods ..................................... 10 II. THE CONCLUSIONS REACHED BY THE PANEL AND THE ARTHUR MAJORITY VIOLATES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE AND CREATED CONFUSION AMONG THE CIRCUIT COURTS.............................. 11 III. THE PANEL, AND THE ARTHUR MAJORITY, INCORRECTLY DETERMINED THAT AN INMATE MUST ESTABLISH THAT BOTH LETHAL INJECTION AND ELECTROCUTION ARE PER SE UNCONSTITUTIONAL ................ 15 IV. THE DECISION OF THE PANEL, AND THE ARTHUR MAJORITY, TERMINATES THE NECESSARY DIALOGUE SURROUNDING METHODS OF EXECUTION AND THEIR EVOLUTION ....................................... 17 iv V. THE PANEL ERRED IN DETERMINING THAT MR. BOYD’S COMPLAINT DID NOT SATISFY THE PLEADING REQUIREMENTS ............................... 18 VI. THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ERRED BY NOT GRANTING MR. BOYD LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT TO PLEAD AN ALTERNATE INJECTION PROTOCOL ................... 21 CONCLUSION .......................................................... 22 APPENDIX: Appendix A - Judgment from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, dated May 9, 2017 ........... 1a Appendix B - Decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, dated May 9, 2017 ........................... 5a Appendix C - Final Judgment of the United States District Court Northern District of Alabama Middle Division, dated October 7, 2015 ........................................... 59a Appendix D - Memorandum and Order of the United States District Court Northern District of Alabama Eastern Division, dated October 7, 2015 ................................. 65a Appendix E - U.S. Const. Amend. VIII ................ 81a v Appendix F - 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ............................... 82a Appendix G - Ala. Code § 15-18-82.1 ..................... 83a Appendix H - Amended Complaint, dated December 1, 2014 ........................................ 86a vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES: Arthur v. Comm’r. Ala. Dept. of Corrs., 840 F.3d 1268 (11th Cir. 2015), cert. denied sub nom. Arthur v. Dunn, 137 S. Ct. 725 (2017), reh’g denied, (U.S. Apr. 24, 2017) ................................ passim Arthur v. Dunn, 137 S. Ct. 725 (2017), reh’g denied, (U.S. Apr. 24, 2017) ................................ passim Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35, 128 S. Ct. 1520 (2008) ... i, 6, 7, 19 Boyd v. Alabama, 525 U.S. 968 (1998) ..........................................4 Boyd v. State, 715 So.2d 825 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997) ..............3 Boyd v. Walter Myers, et al., Case No. 2:14-CV-1017-WKW, 2015 WL 5852948 (M.D. Ala. Oct. 7, 2015) ....................................1 Boyd v. Warden, Holman Corr. Facility, No. 15-14971, 2017 WL 1856071 (11th Cir. May 9, 2017) .......................... 5, 7, 13 Boyd v. Warden, Holman, CF, et al., 856 F.3d 853 (11th Cir. 2017) .. 1, 18, 19, 20, 21 vii Ex parte Boyd, 715 So.2d 852 (Ala. 1998) .................................3 Glossip v. Gross, 135 S. Ct. 2726, reh’g denied, 136 S. Ct. 20, 192 (2015) ........................ passim Grayson v. Warden, et al., 869 F.3d 1204 (11th Cir. 2017) ...................... 21 Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964) .............................. 11-12 Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U.S. 130 (1878) .......................................... 10 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS: U.S. Const. Amend. VIII ................................... passim STATUTES: 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) ......................................................1 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ...................................................... 1, 4 Ala. Code § 15-18-82.1 .......................................... 2, 10 Ala. Code § 15-18-82.1 (a) ....................................... 2, 9 Ala. Code § 15-18-82.1(c) ...................................... 2, 10 Ala. Code § 15–18–82.1(h) ..........................................3 RULES: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ................................................6 viii OPINIONS BELOW The Eleventh Circuit’s Order denying Mr. Boyd’s petition for rehearing is attached in the accompanying Appendix (“App.”) at 1a. The Eleventh Circuit’s Opinion affirming the State of Alabama’s motion to dismiss is reported at Boyd v. Warden, Holman, CF, et al., 856 F.3d 853 (11th Cir. 2017), and is attached at App. 5a. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama’s decision granting the State of Alabama’s motion to dismiss, Boyd v. Walter Myers, et al., Case No. 2:14- CV-1017-WKW, 2015 WL 5852948 (M.D. Ala. Oct. 7, 2015), is attached at App. 59a. JURISDICTION The Court of Appeals entered its decision on May 9, 2017, and denied Boyd’s timely filed petition for rehearing on August 3, 2017. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED The Eighth Amendment provides: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides in pertinent part: Every person who, under color of any statute . subjects, or causes to be subjected any citizens of the United 1 states . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . [.] Ala. Code § 15-18-82.1 provides in pertinent part: (a) A death sentence shall be executed by lethal injection, unless the person sentenced to death affirmatively elects to be executed by electrocution. (c) If electrocution or lethal injection is held to be unconstitutional by the Alabama Supreme Court under the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, or held to be unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court under the United States Constitution, or if the United States Supreme Court declines to review any judgment holding a method of execution to be unconstitutional under the United States Constitution made by the Alabama Supreme Court or the United States Court of Appeals that has jurisdiction over Alabama, all persons sentenced to death for a capital crime shall be executed by any constitutional