Campbell v. Livingston

4 Citing cases

  1. Ladd v. Livingston

    777 F.3d 286 (5th Cir. 2015)   Cited 26 times

    The execution protocol at issue in those cases is essentially the same as that the State plans to use here: they involve the use of an unexpired 5 gram dose of pentobarbital obtained from a licensed compounding pharmacy, which has been tested by an independent laboratory and found to have a potency of greater than 100% and to be free of contaminants. Under our circuit's rule of orderliness, these decisions, involving the application of essentially the same facts to the same law, control our own, and require us to deny the motion for injunctive relief.See, e.g., Trottie v. Livingston, 766 F.3d 450, 452–53 (5th Cir.2014) ; Campbell v. Livingston, 567 Fed.Appx. 287, 289 (5th Cir.2014) (unpublished); Sells v. Livingston, 750 F.3d 478, 480–81 (5th Cir.2014) ; Sells v. Livingston, 561 Fed.Appx. 342, 344–45 (5th Cir.2014) (unpublished); Thorson v. Epps, 701 F.3d 444, 447 n. 3 (5th Cir.2012) (holding, in a decision addressing Mississippi's execution process, that Texas's one-drug protocol is acceptable under Baze ).See Trottie, 766 F.3d at 452 ; Def.s' Opp'n Temporary Injunctive Relief & Mot. TRO Seeking Stay Execution (“Defs' Opp'n”), at 2.

  2. Trottie v. Livingston

    766 F.3d 450 (5th Cir. 2014)   Cited 35 times
    Holding that the plaintiff did not have a due process right to disclosure of the state's execution protocol because "uncertainty as to the method of execution is not a cognizable liberty interest."

    The only difference between the July 9, 2012 Execution Procedure and the procedure we considered in Raby v. Livingston, 600 F.3d 552 (5th Cir.2010), is a change from the use of three drugs to a single drug. It is well established in this circuit that the single-drug protocol is valid. See Sells, 750 F.3d at 481; Thorson v. Epps, 701 F.3d 444, 447 n. 3 (5th Cir.2012); see also Campbell v. Livingston, et al., 567 Fed.Appx. 287, 2014 WL 1887578 (5th Cir. May 12, 2014), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 2829, ––– L.Ed.2d –––– (2014).the source of the pentobarbital, documentation reflecting the purchase of the drug, the timing and means of storage of the drug, the date of manufacture/mixing of the drug, any lot numbers which may exist, the raw ingredients used to make the drug and the source of same, the testing that was conducted on the drug and the results of that testing, and the laboratory and names of its personnel which conducted the testing.

  3. Swearingen v. Collier

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:19-CV-3079 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    The Fifth Circuit has routinely denied relief in substantially similar cases. See Whitaker v. Collier, 862 F.3d 490, 501 (5th Cir. 2017); Wood v. Collier, 836 F.3d 534, 540 (5th Cir. 2016); Ladd v. Livingston, 777 F.3d 286, 289 (5th Cir. 2015); Trottie v. Livingston, 766 F.3d 450, 452 (5th Cir. 2014); Campbell v. Livingston, 567 F. App'x 287 (5th Cir. 2014); Sells v. Livingston, 750 F.3d 478, 481 (5th Cir. 2014); Raby v. Livingston, 600 F.3d 552 (5th Cir. 2010). In particular, the Fifth Circuit has summarily rejected other challenges based on Texas' calculation of the BUD.

  4. Phillips v. DeWine

    92 F. Supp. 3d 702 (S.D. Ohio 2015)   Cited 13 times
    Dismissing right to petition and right of access claims

    Similarly, last year the Fifth Circuit twice rejected the premise that the failure to provide all the information inmates wanted about an execution protocol implicated a liberty interest so that lack of disclosure constituted a due process violation. Campbell v. Livingston, 567 Fed.Appx. 287, 289 (5th Cir.2014) ; Sells v. Livingston, 750 F.3d 478, 481 (5th Cir.2014). The foregoing authority teaches that Plaintiffs have failed to state plausible claims under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.