From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hill v. Hopper

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Apr 17, 1997
112 F.3d 1088 (11th Cir. 1997)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

finding district court lacked jurisdiction to consider second habeas petition

Summary of this case from Morris v. U.S.
See 21 Summaries

Opinion

No. 97-6306

Decided April 17, 1997

Barry J. Fisher, Palmer Singleton, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Beth Jackson Hughes, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Montgomery, AL, for Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama

D.C. Docket No. 97-T-476-N

Before HATCHETT, Chief Judge, COX and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Walter Hill, an Alabama inmate convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death, challenges on appeal the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. §(s) 1983 assault upon the constitutionality of electrocution as a means of execution. The State of Alabama intends to execute Hill by means of electrocution on May 2, 1997. On March 31, 1997, Appellant Hill filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama charging that the scheduled electrocution constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Among other relief, the complaint sought to enjoin Appellee Joe S. Hopper from employing electrocution to carry out Hill's death sentence. By order dated April 10, 1997, the district court dismissed the complaint as an improper successive habeas petition. We affirm.

In Felker v. Turpin, 101 F.3d 95, 96 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 450 (1996), we held that a prisoner may not circumvent the rules regarding second or successive habeas petitions by filing a Section(s) 1983 claim. Appellant Hill acknowledges that he has filed a previous federal habeas petition. See Hill v. Jones, 81 F.3d 1015 (11th Cir.), reh'g and suggestion for reh'g en banc denied, 92 F.3d 1202 (11th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 967 (1997). As Hill's Section(s) 1983 cruel and unusual punishment claim constitutes the "functional equivalent" of a second habeas petition, the district court was subject to the law applicable to successive habeas petitions. Felker, 101 F.3d at 96. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Appellant Hill's request for relief because Hill had not applied to this Court for permission to file a second habeas petition.

AFFIRMED.

Summaries of

Hill v. Hopper

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Apr 17, 1997
112 F.3d 1088 (11th Cir. 1997)

finding district court lacked jurisdiction to consider second habeas petition

Summary of this case from Morris v. U.S.

finding that district court lacked jurisdiction to consider a second § 2254 petition

Summary of this case from Miller v. Jarriel

finding district court lacked jurisdiction to consider second habeas petition

Summary of this case from Morris v. U.S.

finding that district court lacked jurisdiction to consider a second § 2254 petition

Summary of this case from Peterson v. State

finding that district court lacked jurisdiction to consider a second § 2254 petition

Summary of this case from Roberson v. Askew

finding that district court lacked jurisdiction to consider a second § 2254 petition

Summary of this case from Holloman v. Georgia State Board of Pardons Paroles

finding district court lacked jurisdiction to consider second § 2254 petition

Summary of this case from Mitchell v. U.S.

finding district court lacked jurisdiction to consider second § 2254 petition

Summary of this case from Mason v. U.S.

determining that "the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Appellant Hill's request for relief because Hill had not applied to this Court for permission to file a second habeas petition"

Summary of this case from Savageau v. United States

determining that "the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Appellant Hill's request for relief because Hill had not applied to this Court for permission to file a second habeas petition"

Summary of this case from Johnson v. United States

determining "the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Appellant Hill's request for relief because Hill had not applied to this Court for permission to file a second habeas petition"

Summary of this case from Davis v. United States

determining "the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Appellant Hill's request for relief because Hill had not applied to this Court for permission to file a second habeas petition"

Summary of this case from Branham v. United States

determining that "the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Appellant Hill's request for relief because Hill had not applied to this Court for permission to file a second habeas petition"

Summary of this case from Ondilla v. United States

determining that "the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Appellant Hill's request for relief because Hill had not applied to this Court for permission to file a second habeas petition"

Summary of this case from Conner v. Sellers

determining that "the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Appellant Hill's request for relief because Hill had not applied to this Court for permission to file a second habeas petition"

Summary of this case from Anderson v. United States

determining that "the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Appellant Hill's request for relief because Hill had not applied to this Court for permission to file a second habeas petition"

Summary of this case from Arnold v. United States

determining that "the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Appellant Hill's request for relief because Hill had not applied to this Court for permission to file a second habeas petition"

Summary of this case from Hardin v. United States

determining that "the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Appellant Hill's request for relief because Hill had not applied to this Court for permission to file a second habeas petition"

Summary of this case from Frank v. United States

following Felker and holding that district court lacked jurisdiction over § 1983 claim that should have been treated as a second or successive habeas petition

Summary of this case from Spivey v. State Bd. of Pardons and Paroles

stating that pursuant to section 2244, "the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider [the petitioner's] request for relief because [he] had not applied to [the appropriate court of appeals] for permission to file a second habeas petition"

Summary of this case from Mikell v. U.S.

In Hill, like in Felker, the plaintiff brought an action under § 1983 seeking to enjoin his imminent execution and raising only a single claim: that electrocution always is an unconstitutional method for carrying out the death penalty.

Summary of this case from Jones v. McAndrew
Case details for

Hill v. Hopper

Case Details

Full title:WALTER HILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOE S. HOPPER, Commissioner of…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Date published: Apr 17, 1997

Citations

112 F.3d 1088 (11th Cir. 1997)

Citing Cases

Nelson v. Campbell

The procedure would be performed using local anesthetic. As we stated in Hill v. Hopper, 112 F.3d 1088,…

Robertson v. Cooks

Absent permission from the Eleventh Circuit authorizing Robertson to file a successive petition, this court…

193 Citing Cases