Daniel Lee Siebert v. Richard Allen , 506 F.3d 1047 ( 2007 )

PUBLISH
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-14956 November 5, 2007
________________________ THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 07-00295-CV-MEF-WC
DANIEL LEE SIEBERT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
RICHARD ALLEN, Commissioner,
Alabama Department of Corrections,
individually and in his official capacity,
GRANTT CULLIVER, Warden, Holman
Correctional Facility, in his
individual and official capacity,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
_________________________
(November 5, 2007)
Before TJOFLAT, BARKETT and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
We sua sponte vacate and reconsider our original opinion and substitute the
following.
Daniel L. Siebert appeals the district court’s denial of his Emergency
Motion for Preliminary Injunction to Stay Execution and requests a postponement
of execution. We conclude that the district court erred in refusing to enjoin the
Commissioner from carrying out Siebert’s execution pending the court’s final
disposition of his “as-applied” claim, i.e., that the three-drug protocol to be used
by Alabama during his execution by lethal injection, as applied to him, would
violate his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to be free from cruel and
unusual punishment. We therefore reverse the district court’s order and remand
the case for further consideration of Siebert’s claim.
Siebert’s federal habeas challenge to his conviction and death sentence for
the murders of Sherri Weathers and her two sons was denied certiorari by the
United States Supreme Court on March 19, 2007. On April 9, 2007, Siebert filed a
42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit in the Middle District of Alabama challenging the
constitutionality of the State’s three-drug protocol for his execution by lethal
injection on the ground that it creates an unnecessary risk of severe pain and
suffering. In late May 2007, Siebert was stricken with severe jaundice and
diagnosed with hepatitis C. A biopsy was taken on July 12, 2007, and Siebert was
diagnosed with pancreatic cancer as well. On July 19, 2007, Siebert immediately
filed an Amended Complaint restating the allegations in his first complaint and
2
adding the claim that, as applied to him specifically, the three-drug protocol would
constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Constitution because
of substantial complications likely to arise due to his serious illnesses. The
Alabama Supreme Court thereafter entered an order setting October 25, 2007, as
the date of Siebert’s execution.
On October 3, 2007, the district court granted the Commissioner’s motion to
dismiss Siebert’s § 1983 claim to the extent that it mounted a general challenge to
the constitutionality of Alabama’s three-drug protocol, finding that Siebert had
delayed unnecessarily in bringing that claim. However, the court denied the
Commissioner’s motion to dismiss Siebert’s “as-applied” § 1983 claim. Because
the factual predicate for that claim – namely, Siebert’s diagnosis of pancreatic
cancer and hepatitis C – was not in place until late May 2007,1 the court concluded
that Siebert did not unreasonably delay in bringing his claim. Noting that
dismissal was also not warranted on statute-of-limitations grounds, the court held
that this “as-applied” claim “survive[s] and will be litigated.” A scheduling
conference was accordingly set for October 10, 2007, on that claim.
On October 9, 2007, Siebert moved the district court to enjoin his execution.
1
While the district court states late May 2007, it appears the actual diagnosis of pancreatic
cancer was even later than that.
3
The court acknowledged that the motion was timely but concluded that Siebert had
not satisfied the requisites for a preliminary injunction. Specifically, the court
held that Siebert had not demonstrated a substantial likelihood that he would
eventually prevail on the merits of his “as-applied” challenge. Whether Siebert
could ultimately prevail on his “as-applied” challenge would have to await further
proceedings, perhaps a trial on the merits.
The district court correctly stated the four factors to be considered in
determining whether preliminary injunctive relief is to be granted, which are
whether the movant has established: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the
merits; (2) that irreparable injury will be suffered if the relief is not granted; (3)
that the threatened injury outweighs the harm the relief would inflict on the non-
movant; and (4) that entry of the relief would serve the public interest. See, e.g.,
Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223, 1225-26 (11th Cir. 2005).2
2
While the district court conducted de novo review of Siebert’s claim, we review the
district court’s denial of injunctive relief only for an abuse of discretion. “This scope of review
will lead to reversal only if the district court applies an incorrect legal standard, or applies
improper procedures, or relies on clearly erroneous factfinding, or if it reaches a conclusion that
is clearly unreasonable or incorrect.” Schiavo, 403 F.3d at 1226; see also Klay v. United
Healthgroup, Inc., 376 F.3d 1092, 1096 (11th Cir. 2004); Chicago Tribune Co. v.
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1309 (11th Cir. 2001). “Short of that, an abuse of
discretion standard recognizes there is a range of choices within which we will not reverse the
district court even if we might have reached a different decision.” Schiavo, 403 F.3d at 1226; see
also McMahan v. Toto, 256 F.3d 1120, 1128 (11th Cir. 2001); In re Rasbury, 24 F.3d 159, 168-
69 (11th Cir. 1994).
4
We conclude that the district court abused its discretion in denying
preliminary injunctive relief as to Siebert’s “as-applied” claim. The district court
found that Siebert’s “as-applied” claim was timely filed immediately upon
diagnosis of Siebert’s hepatitis C and terminal pancreatic cancer and thus as soon
as he could have brought it.3 Specifically, Siebert’s “as-applied” claim derives
from his recent diagnosis of hepatitis C and inoperable pancreatic cancer,
including but not limited to obstruction of his upper gastrointestinal tract (“GI
tract”) due to a cancerous tumor. The district court noted that Siebert has a
feeding tube, suffers from chronic nausea and tumor-related pain, and has been
losing weight. Dr. Jimmie H. Harvey, Jr., a board-certified medical oncologist,
reviewed Siebert’s medical records and opined, among other things, that Siebert’s
life expectancy is less than 90 days and that there is a “great likelihood” that
Siebert would regurgitate stomach content when administered the current
3
The reversal of the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction relates to only
Siebert’s “as-applied” claim, as to which the district court denied the motion to dismiss. We
affirm the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction on Siebert’s general challenge to
Alabama’s three-drug protocol, which the district court dismissed on the grounds that Siebert
unreasonably and unnecessarily delayed in bringing said claim until his execution was imminent.
See Williams v. Allen, 496 F.3d 1210, 1215 (11th Cir. 2007), cert. dismissed, ___ S. Ct. ___, 76
U.S.L.W. 3168 (U.S. Aug. 22, 2007) (No. 07-6034); Grayson v. Allen, 491 F.3d 1318, 1322
(11th Cir. 2007) (“Grayson II”), cert. denied, ___ S. Ct. ___, 76 U.S.L.W. 3049 (U.S. July 26,
2007) (No. 07-5457); Jones v. Allen, 485 F.3d 635, 639-40 (11th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 127 S.
Ct. 2160 (2007); Rutherford v. McDonough, 466 F.3d 970, 973-74 (11th Cir. 2006), cert. denied,
127 S. Ct. 465 (2006).
5
three-drug protocol and aspirate prior to death. Moreover, Dr. Harvey stressed, in
this regard, Siebert’s malignancy and the physiology of his upper GI tract at this
particular time. Because Siebert is “cachectic,” which the district court found
means “having physical wasting with loss of weight and muscle mass due to
disease,” Dr. Harvey also noted that Siebert will have “very compromised venous
access” due to his particular serious medical conditions. Additionally, Dr. Harvey
reported that due to “the inevitable death related to this malignancy, Mr. Siebert
has elected to receive no palliative chemotherapy or radiation therapy.”
Given the timeliness of the filing of Siebert’s “as-applied” claim, Dr.
Harvey’s evaluation and the unique situation presented by Siebert’s terminal
pancreatic cancer, we conclude that the district court erred in determining that
Siebert failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his
“as-applied” claim. Therefore, it was an abuse of discretion for the district court
to deny Siebert’s motion for a preliminary injunction as to the “as-applied”
challenge to Alabama’s three-drug protocol.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of a preliminary
injunction on Siebert’s general challenge to Alabama’s three-drug protocol. See
Williams, 496 F.3d at 1212-13 (quoting Grayson, 491 F.3d at 1322). We
REVERSE the district court’s denial of Siebert’s Emergency Motion for a
6
Preliminary Injunction on Siebert’s “as-applied” claim, and we REMAND the case
for consideration of Siebert’s “as-applied” claim on the merits. The stay
previously entered by this Court shall remain in effect until the time that the
district court has entered judgment on the merits.4
AFFIRMED, in part, REVERSED, in part, and REMANDED.
4
In light of this Court’s sua sponte stay in its October 25, 2007 order, we deny as moot
Siebert’s Motion for Stay of Execution filed in this Court on October 23, 2007.
7