[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
August 29, 2006
No. 06-10621 THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 06-00032-CV-SPM
CLARENCE E. HILL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JAMES MCDONOUGH,
CHARLIE CRIST,
Defendants-Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
______________________________
(August 29, 2006)
ON REMAND FROM THE
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Clarence E. Hill is a Florida death row inmate. On January 20, 2006, Hill
brought this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to enjoin the State of Florida from carrying
out his execution by lethal injection on January 24, 2006. He alleged that the State’s
execution procedure constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments because the first drug to be injected, sodium pentothal,
would not suffice as an anesthetic to render painless the administration of the second
and third drugs that would cause his death. That is, he could remain conscious and
suffer severe pain as the second drug paralyzed his lungs and the third drug caused
cramping and a fatal heart attack.
The district court, relying on our decision in Robinson v. Crosby, 358 F.3d
1281 (11th Cir. 2004), concluded that Hill’s § 1983 claim was the functional
equivalent of a successive petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which this court had
not authorized him to file, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), and therefore dismissed the
claim for lack of jurisdiction. We affirmed. Hill v. Crosby, 437 F.3d 1084, 1085
(11th Cir. 2006).
Hill petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. The Court granted
the writ and stayed his execution pending its resolution of the case. Hill v. Crosby,
546 U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 1189, 1190, 163 L. Ed. 2d 1144 (2006) (mem.). Following
2
oral argument, the Court held that Hill’s § 1983 claim could proceed, vacated our
judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Hill v. McDonough, 547
U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 2096, 2102–04, 165 L. Ed. 2d 44 (2006). Since, as the Supreme
Court observed, “[t]he equities and the merits of Hill’s underlying action” have not
been determined, id. at 2104, and because the district court is the appropriate forum
for such determination, we vacate that court’s decision and remand the case for
further proceedings.
SO ORDERED.
3