No. 23-7591

Jamie Mills v. John Q. Hamm, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, et al.

Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2024-05-29
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: access-to-counsel access-to-courts civil-rights constitutional-violation cruel-and-unusual-punishment cruel-punishment due-process eighth-amendment execution-procedure prisoner-rights
Key Terms:
DueProcess Punishment TradeSecret JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: N/A
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether Alabama's execution process violates the Eighth Amendment

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Up until Joe James’ execution in July 2022, the expectation was that in Alabama, consistent with the prevailing practice, the most overwhelming part of the execution process, when the condemned enters the chamber until the time of death, would take minutes. See, e.g., Arthur v. Comm’r, Ala. Dep’t of Corr., 680 F. App’x 894, 913 (11th Cir. 2017) (noting that execution process takes “minutes”. In the last two years, however, the State of Alabama has botched at least four out of the last six executions, forcing condemned prisoners to the execution chamber and strapping them to the execution-gurney for hours. While these executions have been carried out in secret without access to counsel, evidence of this extended execution process has come to light through survivor stories after botched executions as well as from independent autopsies. Mr. Mills filed a § 1983 complaint requesting very limited and readily implementable modifications to Alabama’s current execution process: prohibiting Defendants from unnecessarily restraining Mr. Mills on the execution-gurney while stay litigation is pending, and requiring the State to permit Mr. Mills’ legal counsel to be present with phone access in the execution chamber. These facts give rise to two important constitutional questions: 1. Whether given the unique pattern in Alabama’s recent executions, in which Defendants have misrepresented critical facts and prohibited access to courts or counsel, Mr. Mills is likely to succeed on his claim that unnecessary, cruel, and prolonged restraint on the gurney, as well as refusals to provide information regarding ongoing litigation or steps in the execution process violates the Eighth Amendment. 2. Whether, based on this unique and acute context where there can be no enforcement of the relief sought without the presence of counsel, Mr. Mills is entitled to the presence of counsel and access to courts pursuant to the Sixth Amendment and the Due Process Clause. i

Docket Entries

2024-05-30
Brief of respondent John Hamm, Commissioner, et al. in opposition filed.
2024-05-30
Application (23A1065) referred to the Court.
2024-05-30
Application (23A1065) for stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice Thomas and by him referred to the Court is denied. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
2024-05-30
Petition DENIED.
2024-05-30
Reply of Jamie Mills submitted.
2024-05-30
Reply of petitioner Jamie Mills filed.
2024-05-29
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 28, 2024)
2024-05-29
Application (23A1065) for a stay of execution of sentence of death, submitted to Justice Thomas.

Attorneys

John Hamm, Commissioner, et al.
Lauren Ashley SimpsonOffice of the Attorney General State of Alabama, Respondent