Clarence E. Hill v. James R. Mcdonough, Interim Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al. (547 U.S. 573)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 12, 2006 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 547 U.S. 573 · 126 S. Ct. 2096
- Decided
- June 12, 2006
- Term
- October Term 2005
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Kennedy
- Issue area
- Civil Rights
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court. Petitioner Clarence E. Hill challenges the constitutionality of a three-drug sequence the State of Florida likely would use to execute him by lethal injection. Seeking to enjoin the procedure, he filed this action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Rev. Stat. § 1979, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1983. The District Court and the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit construed the action as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and ordered it dismissed for noncompliance with the requirements for a second and successive petition. The question before us is whether Hill’s claim must be brought by an action for a writ of habeas corpus under the statute authorizing that writ, 28 U. S. C. §2254, or whether it may proceed as an action for relief under 42 U. S. C. § 1983. This is not the first time we have found it necessary to discuss which of the two statutes governs an action brought by a prisoner alleging a constitutional violation. See, e. g., Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U. S. 637 (2004); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U. S. 477 (1994); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 475 (1973). Hill’s suit, we now determine, is comparable in its essentials to the action the Court allowed to proceed under § 1983 in Nelson, supra. In accord with that precedent we now reverse. I…
Excerpt of a 18,493-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.