Whether Florida's successive pleading requirements under Rule 3.851(d) violate a capital defendant's due process rights in a post-warrant context and whether Florida courts violated Rogers' Fourteenth Amendment rights by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on his as-applied lethal injection challenge

Glen Edward Rogers is currently facing execution in Florida while suffering from the effects of P orphyria disease, a blood disorder. The state courts violated Rogers’ Due Process and Equal Protection rights pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment to the U nited States Constitution, by not allowing him to fully develop the facts at an evidentiary hearing on his as-applied challenge to Florida’s lethal injection procedures raised under Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. 863 (2015) and Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008). Accordingly, Rogers raises the following issues: 1. Whether Florida’s successive pleading requirements under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851(d) violate a capital defendant’s due process rights, when applied in a post -warrant context. 2. Whether Florida courts violated Rogers’ Fourteenth Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection rights by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on his as applied challenge to lethal injection.