Boyd v. Thomas et al (DEATH PENALTY)

Filing 56

ORDERED that Boyd's Rule 59 motion (Doc. # 52 ) is DENIED, as further set out in order. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 11/6/2015. (kh, ) .

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION ANTHONY BOYD, Plaintiff, v. WALTER MYERS, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 2:14-CV-1017-WKW (WO – Do Not Publish) ORDER Before the court is Plaintiff Anthony Boyd’s (“Boyd”) Motion to Vacate the court’s October 7, 2015 final judgment against him pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. # 52.) The State filed its response in opposition to Boyd’s motion on November 5, 2015. (Doc. # 55.) After careful consideration of Boyd’s motion and the State’s opposition, the court finds that Boyd’s motion (Doc. # 52) is due to be denied. In the Eleventh Circuit, the only grounds for granting a Rule 59 motion are newly discovered evidence, an intervening change in controlling law, or the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice. See Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1344 (11th Cir. 2007); Hammonds v. Sharp, No. 1:05-cv-831-WKW, 2015 WL 1346829, at *1 (M.D. Ala. Mar. 24, 2015); Estate of Ingrum v. Fin. Freedom Acquisition, LLC, No. 3:09-cv-255-WKW, 2011 WL 2784530, at *1 (M.D. Ala. July 15, 2011). Boyd’s motion claims that the court clearly erred when it entered its October 7, 2015 final judgment against him and dismissed his amended complaint. Boyd, however, has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to Rule 59 relief. With respect to the two alternative methods of execution raised by Boyd and rejected by the court (hanging and a firing squad), Glossip v. Gross, 135 S. Ct. 2726 (2015), does not specifically require that the proposed alternative be “permitted by statute,” but it does require that the proposed alternative be feasible and readily available to the State. “To establish that in regard to the use of a particular drug (in this case, midazolam), the inmate must prove not only that the drug being used creates ‘a substantial risk of serious harm,’ but also that there is a ‘known and available alternative[ ]’ drug that is ‘feasible, readily implemented,’ and that will ‘in fact significantly reduce [the] substantial risk of severe pain.” Chavez v. Fla. SP Warden, 742 F.3d 1267, 1273 (11th Cir. 2014) (Carnes, C.J., concurring) (alteration in original) (emphasis added). Boyd did not identify any alternative drug in his Eighth Amendment method-of-execution claim. Nor has he sufficiently demonstrated how the court clearly erred in holding that his remaining claims are time-barred. As a result, it is ORDERED that Boyd’s Rule 59 motion (Doc. # 52) is DENIED. DONE this 6th day of November, 2015. /s/ W. Keith Watkins CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?