Dunn v. Hamm

          On Emergency Appeal to Vacate Stay of Execution Entered in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama by Chief Judge Karon O. Bowdre (No. 2:17-cv-02083-KOB)

          Bernard E. Harcourt, Counsel for Doyle Lee Hamm.

          DOYLE HAMM'S RESPONSE BRIEF

         CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS

         Undersigned counsel certifies that the following persons may have an interest in the outcome of this case: Allen, Richard, former Commissioner, Department of Corrections;

         Armstrong, Jeremy, former Assistant Attorney General during the post-conviction proceedings;

         Bolling, Leon, Warden of Donaldson Correctional Facility and defendant in this action;

         Bowdre, Karon Owen, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama;

         Brasher, Andrew, Solicitor General of the State of Alabama;

         Carnes, Edward E., Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, former Chief of the Capital Punishment and Post-Conviction Litigation Division of the Alabama State Attorney General's Office during Doyle Hamm's case;

         Crenshaw, J. Clayton, Assistant Attorney General;

         Cunningham, Patrick, victim; Dobbs-Ramey, Kimberly, prior counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee;

         Dunn, Jefferson S., Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections and defendant; Folsom, Fred C., trial judge;

         Forrester, Nathan, former Solicitor General for the State of Alabama during the post-conviction appeal;

         Govan, Jr., Thomas R., counsel for the appellants;

         Hamm, Doyle Lee, plaintiff-appellee;

         Harcourt, Bernard E., counsel for plaintiff-appellee;

         Hardeman, Donald, Cullman County Circuit Court Judge and post-conviction judge;

         Harris, Hugh, prior counsel for plaintiff-appellee;

         Hughes, Beth Jackson, Assistant Attorney General, counsel for the appellants;

         King, Troy, former Alabama Attorney General during the federal habeas proceedings;

         Little, William D., Assistant Attorney General during the direct appeal;

         Marshall, Steve, Alabama Attorney General;

         Morin, Robert, counsel for Doyle Hamm on appeal to the United States Supreme

         Court on direct appeal; Nail, Pamela, prior counsel for plaintiff-appellee;

         Newsome, Kevin C, former Solicitor General for the State of Alabama during post-conviction proceedings;

         Nunnelley, Kenneth, former Assistant Attorney General during post-conviction proceedings;

         Pry or, William H., former Alabama Attorney General during the post-conviction proceedings;

         Roden, Douglas, co-defendant; Roden, Regina, co-defendant;

         Siegleman, Don, former Alabama Attorney General during the direct appeal;

         Stewart, Cynthia, Warden of Holman Correctional Facility and defendant in this action;

         Stewart, Sandra J., former Assistant Attorney General during the direct appeal; Strange, Luther, former Alabama Attorney General;

         Thomas, Kim, former Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections; and Williams, Martha E., prior counsel for plaintiff-appellee.

         Statement Regarding Oral Argument

         Appellee-Plaintiff Doyle Lee Hamm respectfully requests oral argument on appellants' motion to vacate pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(1) and Rule 28-1(c) of the Eleventh Circuit Rules, as well as FRAP 27(e) and Eleventh Circuit Rule 27-1(f) which state that motions can be argued with approval of this Court. This is a unique as-applied challenge to an execution by lethal intravenous injection that is set for Thursday, February 22, 2018. It is completely different from the other facial challenges that this Court has recently addressed. This execution, if it is allowed to proceed, is likely to cause exceptionally severe and unnecessary pain and suffering to Doyle Hamm, in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Because of Doyle Hamm's diagnosed lymphatic cancer and carcinoma, and his current medical condition of compromised peripheral veins, this execution is likely to be the first time that the State of Alabama attempts central venous access, a complicated medical procedure made multiple-times more risky because of Doyle Hamm's particular medical conditions. Accordingly, this death penalty case raises unique and procedurally complex matters, and for these reasons, Doyle Hamm firmly believes that oral argument is necessary to assist the Court in ruling on defendants' emergency motion to vacate the stay. Doyle Hamm respectfully requests oral argument on appellants' motion.

         Table of Contents

         Certificate of Interested Persons ................................................................. 1

         Statement Regarding Oral Argument .......................................................... ii

         Table of Contents……………………………………………………………...iii

         Table of Citations ............................................................................................... v

         Statement of the Case ........................................................................................ 1

         Summary of the Argument ................................................................................ 2

         Argument ............................................................................................................... 7

         I. The District Court Properly Found That Doyle Hamm Established a Substantial Likelihood of Success on the Merits ........................................ 7

         A. The district court made specific factual findings establishing that Doyle Hamm demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. . ......... 10

         B. The district court did not conflate the summary judgment standard with the standard for a stay of execution ........................................................................ 19

         C. The district court correctly granted a stay where the record clearly establishes that Doyle Hamm has medical conditions that raise a substantial risk of unnecessary pain and suffering if executed as appellants plan. . ........... 22

         II. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion, But Correctly Decided That Doyle Hamm Timely Filed His §1983 Lawsuit .................................................. 33

         A. As a preliminary matter, the appellants have delayed this case for twelve (12) of the preceding twelve months. . .............................................................. 33

         B. The procedural history conclusively establishes that Hamm did not delay filing his §1983 lawsuit. . .................................................................................. 38

         C. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it found that Doyle Hamm did not delay filing his §1983 lawsuit. . ................................................ 45

         III. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion When It Found No Substantial Risk Of Harm To Defendants And That A Stay Of Execution Would Not Be Adverse To The Public Interest..............................................................47

         Conclusion........................................................................................................................................50

         Table of Citations

         Anderson v. City of Bessemer, 470 U.S. 564 (1985)..............................................18

         Arthur v. Haley, 248 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir. 2001)...................................................10

         Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008).............................................................................6

         Brewer v. Landrigan, 562 U.S. 996 (2010)..............................................................9

         Bucklew v. Lombardi, 565 Fed.Appx. 562 (8th Cir. 2014).............................10, 35

         Chavez v. Fl. P.S. Warden, 742 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2014)..................................14

         Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976).......42

         Ferguson v. Sec, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 494 Fed.Appx. 25 (11th Cir. 2012) ...........9

         Glossip v. Gross, 135 S.Ct. 2726 (2015)..................................................................6

         Grayson v. Allen, 499 F.Supp.2d 1228 (M.D. Ala. 2007)................................44, 45

         Hale v. Pate, 694 Fed.Appx. 682 (11th Cir. 2017)................................................42

         Hallford v. Allen, 634 F.Supp.2d 1267 (S.D. Ala. 2007).......................................45

         Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993)................................................................6

         Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573 (2006)....................................................7, 13, 37

         Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592 (1975).......................................................41

         In re Kemmler,136 U.S. 436 ...