United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 3, 2005
______________________
No. 03-21173 Charles R. Fulbruge III
______________________ Clerk
BOBBY LEE HINES; BILLY FRANK VICKERS; KEVIN LEE ZIMMERMAN,
Petitioners-Appellants,
versus
GARY JOHNSON, Executive Director, Texas Department of Criminal
Justice; DOUG DRETKE, Director, Texas Department of Criminal
Justice, Correctional Institutions Division; NEILL HODGES,
Warden, Huntsville Unit, Huntsville, Texas; and UNKNOWN
EXECUTIONERS,
Respondents-Appellees.
____________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
H-03-CV-5594
_________________________________________________________________
________________________________________
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES
Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant Bobby Lee Hines has been convicted of capital murder
and sentenced to death by the Texas State Courts for the brutal
murder of Michelle Wendy Haupt. Mr Hines filed the instant lawsuit
under 42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging violation of the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments challenging the constitutionality of Texas’s
execution protocol. The district court dismissed Hines’ action for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. This
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
court affirmed. The Supreme Court, however, vacated the judgment
and remanded the case for consideration in light of Nelson v.
Campbell, 541 U.S. 637 (2004). We have reconsidered the case in
light of Nelson and subsequent circuit precedent. After doing so
we conclude that our judgment affirming the district court’s decree
should be reinstated on the alternate grounds established in
Aldrich v. Johnson, 388 F.3d 159 (5th Cir. 2004). For the
alternate reasons assigned, the original judgment of the court
affirming the district court’s judgment is reinstated.