Whether an inmate who demands an alternative method of execution must plead facts detailing the procedure by which his proposed alternative method of execution would be administered

Question Presented Inmates who wish to challenge a method of execution under the Eighth Amendment must plead and prove an alternative method that is “feasible, readily implemented, and that in fact significantly reduces a substantial risk of severe pain.” Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. ___ (2015). Missouri carries out rapid and painless executions by using a single dose of pentobarbital. Ernest Johnson, a condemned murderer, does not want to receive a pentobarbital execution, and has demanded execution by nitrogen gas. The Missouri Department of Corrections does not have procedures in place to administer nitrogen gas, and Johnson did not plead any specific procedures to do so. The district court, therefore, dismissed Johnson’s complaint for failing to plead a feasible, readily implemented alternative method of execution. The Eighth Circuit reversed because it believed Johnson was not required to plead such procedures. The question presented is: Whether an inmate who demands an alternative method of execution must plead facts detailing the procedure by which his proposed alternative method of execution would be administered.