Kentucky's use of lethal injection to execute death row prisoners did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Baze v. Rees, No. 07–5439, 128 S. Ct. 1520 (2008).
     A prisoner awaiting execution failed to show that he would experience anything more than a "loss of consciousness" during the lethal injection execution, based on evidence concerning Virginia's prior executions using that method. Reducing pain and discomfort during such an execution may well be good goals, the federal court noted, but there is not constitutional requirement that the carrying out of a death sentence be accompanied by a surgical "level of comfort." Emmett v. Johnson, No. 3:07CV227, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 40047 (E.D. Va.).
     Death row inmate could proceed on his federal civil rights lawsuit claiming that Florida's procedures for execution by lethal injection violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments because the initial drug administered during it could allow him to suffer severe pain while still conscious, a second drug results in paralysis of the lungs, and a third drug essentially causes a fatal heart attack. Hill v. Crosby, No. 06-10621, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 22082 (11th Cir.). [N/R]
     Previously in this case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the prisoner's constitutional challenge to the procedure could be brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, and did not have to be pursued as an action seeking a writ of habeas corpus. Hill v. McDonough, No. 05-8794, 126 S. Ct. 2096 (2006). [N/R]
     Allegedly suicide-prone prisoner failed to show a causal connection between the pending execution of another inmate and the alleged increased risk that he and other suicide-prone prisoners might attempt to harm themselves. Trial court properly dismissed his lawsuit, which he sought to bring as a class action on behalf of suicide-prone prisoners, seeking to bar the execution. Ziemba v. Rell, No. 05-8903, 409 F.3d 553 (2nd Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     New Jersey correctional officials could not implement new regulations eliminating the requirement of the presence of an emergency cart with medical equipment and supplies at the scene of executions--for the purpose of reviving the inmate in the event of last minute stays--without providing an explanation of its reasoning. Defendant officials were required to present "strong" medical evidence that the effects of the lethal injections used were irreversible. Officials would also be required to show how new restrictions on media access to and filming of executions were justified by legitimate penological, safety, and security concerns. In Re. Readoption of N.J.A.C. 10A:23, 842 A.2d 207 (N.J. Super. A.D. 2004). [N/R]
     Texas prisoner on death row could pursue federal civil rights lawsuit claiming that the state's protocol for lethal injection violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, since that claim challenged the method of execution rather than the death sentence itself. Court finds that the prisoner was entitled to a temporary restraining order staying his execution by this method. Harris v. Johnson, 323 F. Supp. 2d 797 (S.D. Tex. 2004). [N/R]
     Federal appeals court upholds injunctive orders requiring the remedying of "filthy" conditions, inadequate mental health care, inadequate ventilation, and malfunctioning toilets on death row in Mississippi prison, but rejects a number of other injunctive orders by trial court, including requirement of a preventative maintenance program, as not supported by the evidence or improper micro-management. Russell v. Johnson, #03-60529, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 13890 (5th Cir. 2004). [2004 JB Aug]
     U.S. Supreme Court, in case involving death-row prisoner's challenge to Alabama state's use of a death penalty procedure requiring an incision into his arm or leg to access his severely compromised veins, rules that federal civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 is an "appropriate" manner to assert an Eighth Amendment claim challenging confinement conditions in prison and seeking injunctive relief. Nelson v. Campbell, #03-6821, 124 S. Ct. 2117 (2004).[2004 JB Jul]
     Prisoner was not entitled to a stay of execution on the basis of his claim that if a lethal injection was administered to him in an improper way, he could experience severe pain without any visible indication of it. In Re Williams, #04-3014, 359 F.3d 811 (6th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
     Prison regulation that prevented journalists who attended and reported on executions from viewing the lethal injection procedures prior to the actual administration of the injection violated the public's First Amendment right to view executions from the time the condemned prisoner was first brought into the execution chamber. California First Amendment Coalition v. Woodford, #00-16752, 299 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     A prisoner on death row was not entitled to an injunction preventing the state Department of Corrections from executing him until his possible "unnecessary" pain and suffering during the process was minimized. A federal appeals court upheld the finding that the plaintiff's claim, filed as a federal civil rights lawsuit, was properly construed to be a second habeas petition, which he had improperly filed with the trial court without seeking prior permission from the appeals court to file an additional application, so that the trial court had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. (The ruling came on August 14, 2002, the prisoner's execution date). Fugate v. Department of Corrections, No. 02-14400, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 164611 (11th Cir.). [N/R]
     Prisoner sentenced to death was not entitled to a temporary restraining order based on his claim that prison officials planned to violate his right to privacy by permitting an "excessive number" of his victim's family members to view his execution and by improperly allowing recording equipment in the execution chamber. Prisoner did not show a substantial likelihood of success on his underlying federal civil rights claim. Coleman v. Wilkinson, No. 02AP-456, 770 N.E.2d 637 (Ohio App. 2002). [N/R]
         286:148 Prisoner who had been on death row for twenty-two years could not assert that the frequent delays and stays in his execution constituted "torture" or cruel and unusual punishment when the main reason for the delays were his own pursuit of every possible avenue to overturn his death sentence and filing of motions seeking the delays he now complained of. Faulder v. Johnson, 99 F. Supp. 2d 774 (S.D. Tex. 1999).
          [N/R] Court rejects argument that execution by hanging is cruel and unusual punishment in violation of Eighth Amendment. Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380 (9th Cir. 1997). » Editor's Note: For a prior decision reaching the same result, see Campbell v. Wood, 18 F.3d 662 (9th Cir. 1994) (en banc).