Thomas Paul West v. Janice K. Brewer

West v. Brewer · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · July 18, 2011 · No. 11-16707

Summary

The Ninth Circuit denied Thomas Paul West’s emergency motion for an injunction seeking to stay his scheduled execution by Arizona. The court concluded that West had not demonstrated a substantial risk of severe pain under the execution protocol, relying on the district court’s reasoning and representations by Arizona’s counsel that the protocol would be followed.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Per Curiam; Andrew J. Kleinfeld; Kim McLane Wardlaw; Consuelo M. Callahan
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
July 18, 2011
Docket number
11-16707
Procedural posture
Emergency appeal from the denial of a motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction seeking to stay Thomas Paul West's scheduled execution.
Standard of review
The court applied the preliminary-injunction standard requiring a showing of likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm, a favorable balance of equities, and that an injunction is in the public interest.
Precedential value
Published Ninth Circuit order; precedential value is not otherwise specified in the provided text.
Parties
Thomas Paul West, Gregory Dickens, Charles M. Hedlund, Robert W. Murray, Theodore Washington, Todd Smith v. Janice K. Brewer, Governor of Arizona, Charles L. Ryan, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, Ernest Trujillo, Carson McWilliams, Warden, Arizona Department of Corrections-Florence, Unknown Parties, named as Does 1-50
Disposition
other

Topics

appellate procedureequitable reliefcruel and unusual punishmentstandard of reviewconstitutional law

Practice areas

prisoners' rightsconstitutional lawcivil rightsappellate procedureinjunctive relief

Questions Presented

  1. Whether West was entitled to emergency preliminary injunctive relief staying his execution.
  2. Whether West demonstrated that Arizona's intended execution method created a substantial risk of severe pain compared with known and available alternatives.

Holdings

  1. West was not entitled to a preliminary injunction because he failed to show that he was likely to succeed on the merits of his claim or that the intended execution method threatened his constitutional interest in being executed in a constitutional manner.
  2. West failed to demonstrate that Arizona's intended execution method created a substantial risk of severe pain when compared with known and available alternatives.

Key quotations

In order to obtain preliminary injunctive relief, West must show “(1) that he is likely to succeed on the merits of such a claim, (2) that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest.” (9836)
He must show that the risk is substantial when compared to the known and available alternatives. (9836)

Factual background

Thomas Paul West was scheduled to be executed by Arizona on July 19, 2011. He challenged the State's intended execution method, asserting that it created a substantial risk of severe pain, and sought a temporary stay of execution. At oral argument, Arizona's counsel represented that the execution protocol, including the specified drugs and insertion-site procedures, would be followed.

Procedural history

The district court denied West's Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction the night before his scheduled execution. West appealed and filed an emergency motion for an injunction under Ninth Circuit Rule 27-3. After telephonic oral argument, the Ninth Circuit denied the emergency motion.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…