Case: Morales v. Hickman

3:06-cv-00219 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Filed Date: Jan. 11, 2006

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On January 11, 2006, several inmates at the state prison at San Quentin filed lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the California Department of Corrections in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs, all of whom were scheduled to be executed by lethal injection, alleged that their constitutional rights were threatened, arguing that lethal injection was cruel and unusual punishment that violated the Eighth Amendment. They further argued that pancuroni…

On January 11, 2006, several inmates at the state prison at San Quentin filed lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the California Department of Corrections in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs, all of whom were scheduled to be executed by lethal injection, alleged that their constitutional rights were threatened, arguing that lethal injection was cruel and unusual punishment that violated the Eighth Amendment. They further argued that pancuronium bromide, a paralytic agent that acts as a chemical veil over the lethal injection process, disguises the pain and suffering to which a prisoner being executed is subjected, masking the constitutional violation.

On February 13, 2006, these cases were consolidated, with Michael Angelo Morales being treated as the lead plaintiff. On February 14, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Judge Jeremy Fogel) conditionally denied the plaintiff's request for a temporary stay of execution, stipulating that the stay would be granted unless the defendants certified in writing that they would either 1) use only sodium thiopental during the execution or 2) agree to obtain an independent verification by a medically qualified individual that the plaintiff is unconscious before he receives the lethal injection. Morales v. Hickman, 415 F.Supp.2d 1037 (N.D.Cal. 2006). The plaintiff appealed. On February 19, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a per curiam denial of the appeal. Morales v. Hickman, 438 F.3d 926 (9th Cir. 2006). The plaintiff sought review by the U.S. Supreme Court. On February 20, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari. Morales v. Hickman, 546 U.S. 1163 (2006).

As the execution was about to commence on February 21, 2006, the two anesthesiologists designated by the defendants to certify that the plaintiff was unconscious declined to participate in the execution due to ethical concerns arising from their lack of understanding of certain language in the opinions that had been issued in the case. As a result of this hesitation, the execution did not go forward as scheduled. Later the same day, the District Court (Judge Fogel) again ordered the execution by lethal injection to go forward, using sodium thiopental. For reasons that are not specified in our documents, the execution was not carried out, the defendants were unwilling or unable to execute the plaintiff in accordance with the requirements of the District Court, and a stay of execution to permit an evidentiary hearing issued automatically pursuant to the District Court's order of February 14, 2006.

From September 26-29, 2006, the District Court held an evidentiary hearing to resolve the issue. On December 15, 2006, the District Court (Judge Fogel) issued an opinion holding that it would be unconstitutional to inject a prisoner who was not unconscious and ordering the defendants to review and revise their execution procedures.

On January 16, 2007, the defendants responded to the district court's order, advising the court of their intent to revise the state's execution procedures and asking the court for a protective order that would allow them to obtain accurate and candid information necessary to the revision. On March 6, 2007, the District Court denied the motion for a protective order, holding that it was unnecessary. On May 15, 2007, the State of California issued the Lethal Injection Protocol Review, a document that discussed the history and procedures involved in lethal injection, as well as necessary changes that would be made to the procedure.

On July 2, 2007, the Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint alleging that the defendant's Lethal Injunction Protocol Review still created "a grave and substantial risk that Plaintiff will not be adequately unconscious during the execution process and, as a result, will experience an excruciatingly painful and protracted death." Accordingly, the Plaintiffs argued that the defendant's protocol represented an unconstitutional risk of severe pain.

On April 16, 2008, the United States Supreme Court decided Baze v. Rees. In that case, the Court upheld Kentucky's lethal injection protocol as constitutional. Significant to the case at hand, the Kentucky protocol utilized the same three-drug cocktail as California's amended protocol does. The Court established that to show an 8th amendment violation, a plaintiff must prove that a State's lethal injection protocol "creates a demonstrated risk of severe pain. [They] must show that the risk is substantial when compared to the known and available alternatives." The Court found that Kentucky's protocol did not violate this standard. Moreover, the plurality opinion held that "a lethal injection protocol substantially similar to the protocol we uphold today would not create a risk that meets this standard."

On October 8, 2010, the Plaintiffs filed their fourth amended complaint again alleging that the defendant's Lethal Injunction Protocol Review "will subject them to present demonstrated substantial risks of inflicting tortuous pain and suffering under the Eighth Amendment." Furthermore, the Plaintiffs contended that "Defendants' continued use of their three-drug procedure when tested, available alternatives exist establishes that the demonstrated risk of severe pain by Defendants' process is substantial when compared to the known and available alternatives. Defendants have refused to adopt such alternatives in the face of these documented advantages, without any legitimate penological justification for their continued retention of the three-drug protocol."

On October 25, 2010, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for a failure to state a claim. The defendants argued, "plaintiffs failed to state a claim for a facial challenge to California's regulations because the regulations are substantially similar to or exceed the regulations approved by the United States Supreme Court in Baze." Moreover, the motion argued, "Plaintiffs have not alleged facts sufficient to state a claim that, as written, California's regulations will necessarily subject Plaintiffs to a substantial risk of serious harm, where serious harm means severe pain." However, the defendants did not challenge the plaintiffs as applied challenge. On December 10, 2010, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. Given the defendants' burden at the motion to dismiss stage of the litigation, the court was unwilling to find that the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim. However, the court made clear that it "intends to monitor closely the scope and pace of any additional discovery so that the merits of Plaintiffs' claims can be adjudicated promptly."

On June 19, 2013, the court granted the plaintiff's motion to intervene and to stay execution for an additional plaintiff. On September 17, 2013, the Court granted another motion to intervene for two more plaintiffs.

On November 7, 2014, the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation filed a lawsuit called Winchell & Alexander v. Beard against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in Sacramento County Superior Court. The plaintiffs were two individuals whose family members had been murdered by inmates currently on death row who are plaintiffs in Morales v. Hickman. The plaintiffs in Winchell & Alexander argued that as relatives of the victims they had been denied justice by the continued delays of the executions. This case was settled on June 2, 2015, when CDCR agreed to promulgate a single-drug lethal injection regulation within 120 days after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Glossip v. Gross. See the CJLF's website for more information.

On June 29, 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Glossip v. Gross that the sedative midazolam may be part of the lethal injection protocol. 135 S. Ct. 2726 (2015).

On October 27, 2015 CDCR submitted its notice of proposed adoption of lethal injection regulations to the Office of Administrative Law for publication in the California Regulatory Notice Register, pursuant to the settlement in Winchell & Alexander v. Beard. According to California's Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's website, the notice was published in the register on November 6, 2015. The proposed regulations would change the death penalty protocol from the three-drug cocktail to a single drug.

In a new setback to efforts to restart executions in California, the state's Office of Administrative Law (OAL) has rejected the new lethal injection protocol proposed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. On December 28, 2016, the OAL, which is responsible for reviewing regulatory changes proposed in California, issued a 25-page decision of disapproval, citing inconsistencies, inadequate justification for certain parts of the proposal, and a failure to adequately respond to public comments. The agency gave the Department of Corrections four months to address problems in the protocol. See the Death Penalty Information Center website.

On April 18, 2018, Judge Seeborg granted a motion to relate the case of Los Angeles Times Communications LLC v. Kernan to the Morales case. This suit was a First Amendment challenge to California's lethal injection protocol brought by Los Angeles Times Communications LLC and San Francisco Media Progressive Media Center. In response, defendants moved for reconsideration of the order relating the suits. Judge Seeborg denied the motion, arguing that it would be an "unduly burdensome duplication of labor" to have the cases tried separately.

On May 14, 2018, Judge Seeborg granted a motion to intervene by an inmate at San Quentin State Prison. The order also stipulated that his execution be stayed until the litigation ended.

On July 5, 2018, the San Mateo District Attorney moved to intervene in the case on the grounds that it was in their interests to protect the death judgement obtained for certain inmates. They sought intervention to vacate the stays of execution. Both the Riverside and San Bernardino District Attorneys moved to intervene on similar grounds. Judge Seeborg issued an order denying the motions to intervene on the grounds that the District Attorneys' interests were already being represented by the defendants in the case. In August of 2018, the San Mateo, Riverside, and San Bernardino District Attorney's appealed. The appeal was later denied in January of 2020 in light of the settlement negotiations.

On October 31, 2018, an additional inmate moved to intervene and sought a stay of his execution. Two additional inmate moved to intervene and sought a stay of their executions in November of 2018. These motions were denied without prejudice for procedural reasons, leaving a possibility for them to intervene if they filed an amended complaint.

On September 11, 2019, plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, arguing that the executions violated the Eight Amendment.

Two days later, plaintiffs moved to have their suit referred to a Settlement Conference with a Magistrate Judge following California Governor Newsom's Executive Order issued March 13, 2019, which placed a moratorium on the death penalty in California. Judge Seeborg granted this motion and the Settlement Conference was referred to Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu.

As of January 30, 2020, the parties were engaged in settlement talks. There is a settlement conference scheduled for April 23, 2020.

Summary Authors

Justin Benson (2/5/2012)

Anna Jones (3/28/2016)

Abigail DeHart (11/4/2016)

Virginia Weeks (2/4/2018)

Cedar Hobbs (1/30/2020)

Related Cases

Pacific News Service v. Woodford, Northern District of California (2006)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4165701/parties/morales-v-beard/


Judge(s)

Fisher, Raymond C. (California)

Fogel, Jeremy D. (California)

Kennedy, Anthony McLeod (District of Columbia)

Kleinfeld, Andrew Jay (Alaska)

McKeown, M. Margaret (California)

Seeborg, Richard G. (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Anders, Ginger (District of Columbia)

Dahlstrom, Kelly Elizabeth (California)

Doherty, Jean M. (California)

Grele, John R. (California)

Judge(s)

Fisher, Raymond C. (California)

Fogel, Jeremy D. (California)

Kennedy, Anthony McLeod (District of Columbia)

Kleinfeld, Andrew Jay (Alaska)

McKeown, M. Margaret (California)

Seeborg, Richard G. (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Anders, Ginger (District of Columbia)

Dahlstrom, Kelly Elizabeth (California)

Doherty, Jean M. (California)

Grele, John R. (California)

Lam, Janice (Illinois)

Morrison, Kelly Marie (California)

Reinhart, Stephanie L. (Illinois)

Senior , David Andrew (California)

Spelman, Kate (California)

Steinken , Richard P. (Illinois)

Tria, Ann−Kathryn Rose (California)

Weston, Benjamin David (California)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Anderson, Robert R. (California)

Bragg, Robert Lawrence (California)

Brown, Edmund G. Jr. (California)

Engler , Gerald A. (California)

Gillette , Dane R. (California)

Goldman, Jay M. (California)

Graves, Mary Jo (California)

Groendyke, Emily Jane (California)

Hood, Joanna Breiden (California)

Kirschenbauer, Marisa Yee (California)

Matthais, Ronald Stephen (California)

Matthias, Ronald Stephen (California)

McClease, Kelly Lynn (California)

Mohmoud, Aseil H (California)

Patterson, Thomas S. (California)

Quinn, Michael James (California)

Other Attorney(s)

Aminoff, Jonathan Charles (California)

Carrillo−Orellana, Susan Beatriz (California)

Cohbra, Sara Melissa (California)

Cuomo, Dianna Lynn (California)

Daugherty, Sean Ward (California)

DeWitt, Katie Christine (California)

Drozdowski, Mark Raymond (California)

Eurie, Stacy Boulware (California)

Ferreira, Brentford Joseph (California)

Fitzpatrick, Ivy Bridgett (California)

Garvey, Susan Elizabeth (California)

Gevercer, Steven Mark (California)

Hanisee, Michele A. (California)

Hile, Norman C. (California)

Krishnan, Ajay (California)

Lach, Jo Ann (California)

Laurence , Michael David (California)

Millman, Michael G. (California)

Molayem, Jennifer Lopez (California)

Moniz, Leo (California)

Moran, Patrick Denis (California)

Olson, Karl (California)

Parente, Michael Lawrence (California)

Park, Ann Hyanghun (California)

Peakheart, Statia (California)

Plunkett, Cliona R (California)

Renner, Jonathon K. (California)

Richardson-Royer, Elizabeth Hilda (California)

Risher , Michael Temple (California)

Rocconi, Margo Ann (California)

Scheidegger, Kent S. (California)

Schlosser, Alan Lawrence (California)

Secord, James R (California)

Sheldon, Barbara Louise (California)

Streeter, Jon B. (California)

Thurm, Wendy J. (California)

Wagstaffe, Stephen Martin (California)

Wilcox, Rochelle L. (California)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

3:06-cv-00219

Docket (PACER)

Morales v. Tilton

Jan. 22, 2020

Jan. 22, 2020

Docket
1

3:06-cv-00219

Complaint

Jan. 11, 2006

Jan. 11, 2006

Complaint
6

3:06-cv-00219

Motion for Expedited Discovery and to Compel Production of Documents

Jan. 20, 2006

Jan. 20, 2006

Pleading / Motion / Brief
12

3:06-cv-00219

Motion for TRO

Jan. 20, 2006

Jan. 20, 2006

Pleading / Motion / Brief
1

06-cv-00926

Complaint

Morales v. Tilton

Feb. 10, 2006

Feb. 10, 2006

Complaint
3

3:06-cv-00219

Order Consolidating Cases

Morales v. Tilton

Feb. 13, 2006

Feb. 13, 2006

Order/Opinion
62

3:06-cv-00219

06-cv-00926

Order

415 F.Supp.2d 1037

Feb. 14, 2006

Feb. 14, 2006

Order/Opinion
78

3:06-cv-00219

06-cv-00926

Order on Defendant's Motion to Proceed with Execution Under Alternative Condition

Feb. 14, 2006

Feb. 14, 2006

Order/Opinion

06-99002

Application for Stay of Execution

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Feb. 17, 2006

Feb. 17, 2006

Pleading / Motion / Brief

06-99002

Appellant's Opening Brief

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Feb. 17, 2006

Feb. 17, 2006

Pleading / Motion / Brief

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4165701/morales-v-beard/

Last updated May 20, 2022, 1:09 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT for Equitable and Injunctive Relief against Roderick Q. Hickman, Steven Ornoski ( Filing fee $ 250, receipt number 3380416.) Filed byMichael A. Morales. (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2006) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2006 (gm, COURT STAFF). Additional attachment(s) added on 1/27/2006 (gm, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/17/2019: # (2) Civil Cover Sheet) (rcsS, COURT STAFF).

1 Exhibit

View on PACER

2 Civil Cover Sheet

View on PACER

Jan. 13, 2006

Jan. 13, 2006

RECAP

CASE DESIGNATED for Electronic Filing. (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2006)

Jan. 13, 2006

Jan. 13, 2006

PACER

Summons Issued

Jan. 13, 2006

Jan. 13, 2006

PACER

Summons Issued as to Roderick Q. Hickman, Steven Ornoski. (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2006)

Jan. 13, 2006

Jan. 13, 2006

PACER

Case Referred to ECF

Jan. 13, 2006

Jan. 13, 2006

PACER
2

ORDER RELATING CASE signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on January 18, 2006. (mmcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/18/2006)

Jan. 18, 2006

Jan. 18, 2006

PACER
3

SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 1/19/06. (jfsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/19/2006)

Jan. 19, 2006

Jan. 19, 2006

PACER
4

ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Jeremy Fogel for all further proceedings. Judge Maxine M. Chesney no longer assigned to case.Signed by Executive Committee on 1/19/06. (as, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/19/2006)

Jan. 19, 2006

Jan. 19, 2006

PACER
5

FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE SEE DOCKET #1 COMPLAINT against all defendants (Filing fee $ 250.). Filed byMichael A. Morales. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A)(Grele, John) (Filed on 1/20/2006) Modified on 1/24/2006 (gm, COURT STAFF).

1 Exhibit A

View on PACER

Jan. 20, 2006

Jan. 20, 2006

PACER
6

MOTION for Discovery filed by Michael A. Morales. (Grele, John) (Filed on 1/20/2006)

Jan. 20, 2006

Jan. 20, 2006

RECAP
7

Declaration of John R Grele filed byMichael A. Morales. (Grele, John) (Filed on 1/20/2006)

Jan. 20, 2006

Jan. 20, 2006

PACER
8

Proposed Order Granting Discovery by Michael A. Morales. (Grele, John) (Filed on 1/20/2006)

Jan. 20, 2006

Jan. 20, 2006

PACER
9

MOTION to Shorten Time to Hear Discovery Motion filed by Michael A. Morales. (Grele, John) (Filed on 1/20/2006)

Jan. 20, 2006

Jan. 20, 2006

PACER
10

Declaration in support of Motion to Shorten Time filed byMichael A. Morales. (Grele, John) (Filed on 1/20/2006)

Jan. 20, 2006

Jan. 20, 2006

PACER
11

Proposed Order to Shorten Time by Michael A. Morales. (Grele, John) (Filed on 1/20/2006)

Jan. 20, 2006

Jan. 20, 2006

PACER
12

MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Michael A. Morales. Motion Hearing set for 1/26/2006 02:00 PM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose. (Grele, John) (Filed on 1/20/2006)

Jan. 20, 2006

Jan. 20, 2006

RECAP
13

EXHIBITS re [12] MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order Exhibit A filed byMichael A. Morales. (Related document(s)[12]) (Grele, John) (Filed on 1/20/2006)

Jan. 20, 2006

Jan. 20, 2006

RECAP
14

EXHIBITS re [12] MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order Exhibit B filed byMichael A. Morales. (Related document(s)[12]) (Grele, John) (Filed on 1/20/2006)

Jan. 20, 2006

Jan. 20, 2006

PACER
15

EXHIBITS re [12] MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order Exhibit C (Heath Decl.) filed byMichael A. Morales. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit Curriculum Vitae# (2) Exhibit Execution Logs# (3) Exhibit Rocconi Declaration# (4) Exhibit Derswitz Decl in Cooper# (5) Exhibit AVMA report# (6) Exhibit ASA Advisory# (7) Exhibit Dershwitz Aff in Perkins# (8) Exhibit Williams Execution Article)(Related document(s)[12]) (Grele, John) (Filed on 1/20/2006)

1 Exhibit Curriculum Vitae

View on PACER

2 Exhibit Execution Logs

View on PACER

3 Exhibit Rocconi Declaration

View on PACER

4 Exhibit Derswitz Decl in Cooper

View on PACER

5 Exhibit AVMA report

View on PACER

6 Exhibit ASA Advisory

View on PACER

7 Exhibit Dershwitz Aff in Perkins

View on PACER

8 Exhibit Williams Execution Article

View on PACER

Jan. 20, 2006

Jan. 20, 2006

PACER
16

Proposed Order re [12] MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Michael A. Morales. (Grele, John) (Filed on 1/20/2006)

Jan. 20, 2006

Jan. 20, 2006

PACER
17

Memorandum in Opposition TO APPLICATION TO TRO filed bySteven Ornoski. (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 1/23/2006)

Jan. 23, 2006

Jan. 23, 2006

PACER
18

EXHIBITS PART 1 filed bySteven Ornoski. (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 1/23/2006)

Jan. 23, 2006

Jan. 23, 2006

PACER
19

EXHIBITS PART 2 filed bySteven Ornoski. (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 1/23/2006)

Jan. 23, 2006

Jan. 23, 2006

PACER
20

NOTICE by Steven Ornoski LODGING DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 1/23/2006)

Jan. 23, 2006

Jan. 23, 2006

PACER
21

Reply Memorandum in Support of Motions for TRO and Discovery filed byMichael A. Morales. (Grele, John) (Filed on 1/25/2006)

Jan. 25, 2006

Jan. 25, 2006

PACER
22

EXHIBITS re [21] Reply Memorandum filed byMichael A. Morales. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 1 to Heath Declaration# (2) Exhibit 2 to Heath Declaration# (3) Exhibit 3 to Heath Declaration)(Related document(s)[21]) (Grele, John) (Filed on 1/25/2006)

1 Exhibit 1 to Heath Declaration

View on PACER

2 Exhibit 2 to Heath Declaration

View on PACER

3 Exhibit 3 to Heath Declaration

View on PACER

Jan. 25, 2006

Jan. 25, 2006

PACER
23

*** FILED IN ERROR. DOCUMENT LOCKED. PLEASE SEE DOCKET #[24]. *** EXHIBITS re [21] Reply Memorandum Exhibit A (Senior Declaration) filed byMichael A. Morales. (Related document(s)[21]) (Grele, John) (Filed on 1/25/2006) Modified on 1/25/2006 (ewn, COURT STAFF). Modified on 1/26/2006 (ewn, COURT STAFF).

Jan. 25, 2006

Jan. 25, 2006

PACER
24

EXHIBITS re [21] Reply Memorandum Exhbiit A (Senior Decalration) CORRECTION OF DOCKET # [23] filed byMichael A. Morales. (Related document(s)[21]) (Grele, John) (Filed on 1/25/2006)

Jan. 25, 2006

Jan. 25, 2006

PACER
25

EXHIBITS re [6] MOTION for Discovery Exhibit A filed byMichael A. Morales. (Related document(s)[6]) (Grele, John) (Filed on 1/26/2006)

Jan. 26, 2006

Jan. 26, 2006

PACER
26

Minute Entry: Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for Discovery Hearing held on 1/26/2006 before Judge Jeremy Fogel (Date Filed: 1/27/2006). Court sets the case for Preliminary Injunction hearing on 2/9/2006 at 2:00 p.m. (Court Reporter Peter Torreano.) (dlm, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 1/27/2006)

Jan. 27, 2006

Jan. 27, 2006

PACER
27

Second MOTION for Discovery filed by Michael A. Morales. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit Exhibit 1 (discovery request)# (2) Exhibit Exhibit 2 (Discovery response)# (3) Exhibit Exhibit 3 (second request)# (4) Exhibit Exhibit 4 (second response)# (5) Exhibit Exhibit 5 (Admin Review))(Grele, John) (Filed on 1/27/2006)

1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 (discovery request)

View on PACER

2 Exhibit Exhibit 2 (Discovery response)

View on PACER

3 Exhibit Exhibit 3 (second request)

View on PACER

4 Exhibit Exhibit 4 (second response)

View on PACER

5 Exhibit Exhibit 5 (Admin Review)

View on PACER

Jan. 27, 2006

Jan. 27, 2006

PACER
28

Proposed Order re [27] Second MOTION for Discovery by Michael A. Morales. (Grele, John) (Filed on 1/27/2006)

Jan. 27, 2006

Jan. 27, 2006

PACER
29

Memorandum in Opposition DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF DISCOVERY REQUEST filed bySteven Ornoski. (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 1/30/2006)

Jan. 30, 2006

Jan. 30, 2006

PACER
30

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY by Judge Jeremy Fogel (jfsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/1/2006 AT 11:34 A.M.) Modified on 2/1/2006 (jfsec, COURT STAFF).

Feb. 1, 2006

Feb. 1, 2006

RECAP
31

TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 1/26/2006 before Judge Jeremy Fogel. Court Reporter: Peter Torreano.. (gm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/1/2006) (Entered: 02/02/2006)

Feb. 1, 2006

Feb. 1, 2006

PACER
32

Memorandum in Opposition DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITIONTO MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF filed bySteven Ornoski. (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 2/6/2006)

Feb. 6, 2006

Feb. 6, 2006

PACER
33

EXHIBITS filed byRoderick Q. Hickman. (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 2/6/2006)

Feb. 6, 2006

Feb. 6, 2006

PACER
34

EXHIBITS PART 1 filed bySteven Ornoski. (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 2/6/2006)

Feb. 6, 2006

Feb. 6, 2006

PACER
35

EXHIBITS PART 2 filed bySteven Ornoski. (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 2/6/2006)

Feb. 6, 2006

Feb. 6, 2006

PACER
36

EXHIBITS PART 3 filed bySteven Ornoski. (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 2/6/2006)

Feb. 6, 2006

Feb. 6, 2006

PACER
37

EXHIBITS PART 4 filed bySteven Ornoski. (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 2/6/2006)

Feb. 6, 2006

Feb. 6, 2006

PACER
38

EXHIBITS PART 5 filed byRoderick Q. Hickman. (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 2/6/2006)

Feb. 6, 2006

Feb. 6, 2006

PACER
39

EXHIBITS PART 6 filed byRoderick Q. Hickman. (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 2/6/2006)

Feb. 6, 2006

Feb. 6, 2006

PACER
40

EXHIBITS PART 7 filed bySteven Ornoski. (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 2/6/2006)

Feb. 6, 2006

Feb. 6, 2006

PACER
41

EXHIBITS PART 8 filed byRoderick Q. Hickman. (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 2/6/2006)

Feb. 6, 2006

Feb. 6, 2006

PACER
42

MEMORANDUM in Support Plaintiff's Supplemental Brief filed byMichael A. Morales. (Grele, John) (Filed on 2/6/2006)

Feb. 6, 2006

Feb. 6, 2006

PACER
43

EXHIBITS PART 9 filed bySteven Ornoski. (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 2/6/2006)

Feb. 6, 2006

Feb. 6, 2006

PACER
44

EXHIBITS PART 10 filed bySteven Ornoski. (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 2/6/2006)

Feb. 6, 2006

Feb. 6, 2006

PACER
45

EXHIBITS PART 11 filed byRoderick Q. Hickman. (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 2/6/2006)

Feb. 6, 2006

Feb. 6, 2006

PACER
46

EXHIBITS PART 12 filed byRoderick Q. Hickman. (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 2/6/2006)

Feb. 6, 2006

Feb. 6, 2006

PACER
47

EXHIBITS PART 13 filed byRoderick Q. Hickman. (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 2/6/2006)

Feb. 6, 2006

Feb. 6, 2006

PACER
48

EXHIBITS re [42] Memorandum in Support filed byMichael A. Morales. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 1 -- Taylor Motion to Dismiss# (2) Exhibit 2 Taylor Declaration in Support of Stay# (3) Exhibit 3 Taylor Minute Orders# (4) Exhibit 4 Taylor Denial of Relief# (5) Exhibit 5: 8th Circuit Stay Order# (6) Exhibit 6: Declaration of Dr. Melenthil# (7) Exhibit 7: Dr. Heath Declaration# (8) Taylor 8th Cir. Brief# (9) Exhibit 9: Reid Transcript)(Related document(s)[42]) (Grele, John) (Filed on 2/6/2006)

1 Exhibit 1 -- Taylor Motion to Dismiss

View on PACER

2 Exhibit 2 Taylor Declaration in Support of Stay

View on PACER

3 Exhibit 3 Taylor Minute Orders

View on PACER

4 Exhibit 4 Taylor Denial of Relief

View on PACER

5 Exhibit 5: 8th Circuit Stay Order

View on PACER

6 Exhibit 6: Declaration of Dr. Melenthil

View on PACER

7 Exhibit 7: Dr. Heath Declaration

View on PACER

8 Taylor 8th Cir. Brief

View on PACER

9 Exhibit 9: Reid Transcript

View on PACER

Feb. 6, 2006

Feb. 6, 2006

PACER
50

Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to David A. Senior. (gm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/6/2006) (mhpsec, COURT STAFF).

Feb. 6, 2006

Feb. 6, 2006

PACER
49

Minute Entry: Preliminary Injunction Hearing held on 2/9/2006 before Judge Jeremy Fogel (Date Filed: 2/9/2006). (Court Reporter Peter Torreano.) (pmc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/9/2006)

Feb. 9, 2006

Feb. 9, 2006

PACER
51

AMENDED DOCUMENT by Michael A. Morales. Amendment to [1] Complaint, Amended Complaint. (Grele, John) (Filed on 2/10/2006)

Feb. 10, 2006

Feb. 10, 2006

PACER
52

MOTION to Consolidate Cases filed by Michael A. Morales. (Attachments: # (1) Declaration in support)(Grele, John) (Filed on 2/10/2006)

1 Declaration in support

View on PACER

Feb. 10, 2006

Feb. 10, 2006

PACER
53

Proposed Order re [52] MOTION to Consolidate Cases by Michael A. Morales. (Grele, John) (Filed on 2/10/2006)

Feb. 10, 2006

Feb. 10, 2006

PACER
54

ORDER REQUESTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 2/13/06, E-filed at 8:39 A.M. (jfsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/13/2006)

Feb. 13, 2006

Feb. 13, 2006

RECAP
55

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO CONSOLIDATE by Judge Jeremy Fogel granting [52] Motion to Consolidate Cases (jfsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/13/2006)

Feb. 13, 2006

Feb. 13, 2006

PACER
56

Reply Memorandum Defendants' response to court inquiry filed bySteven Ornoski. (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 2/13/2006)

Feb. 13, 2006

Feb. 13, 2006

RECAP
61

TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 2/9/2006 before Judge Jeremy Fogel. Court Reporter: Perer Torreano.. (gm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/13/2006) (mhpsec, COURT STAFF).

Feb. 13, 2006

Feb. 13, 2006

PACER
57

Reply Memorandum to Court's Inquiry filed byMichael A. Morales. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A -- news article)(Grele, John) (Filed on 2/14/2006)

1 Exhibit A -- news article

View on PACER

Feb. 14, 2006

Feb. 14, 2006

PACER
58

Declaration of Mark Heath, M.D. in Support of [57] Reply Memorandum to Court's Inquiry filed byMichael A. Morales. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 1 to Heath Declaration# (2) Exhibit 2 to Heath Declaration# (3) Exhibit 4 to Heath Declaration# (4) Exhibit 5 to Heath Declaration)(Related document(s)[57]) (Grele, John) (Filed on 2/14/2006)

1 Exhibit 1 to Heath Declaration

View on PACER

2 Exhibit 2 to Heath Declaration

View on PACER

3 Exhibit 4 to Heath Declaration

View on PACER

4 Exhibit 5 to Heath Declaration

View on PACER

Feb. 14, 2006

Feb. 14, 2006

RECAP
59

EXHIBITS re [58] Declaration in Support, Exhibit 3 to Heath Declaration filed byMichael A. Morales. (Related document(s)[58]) (Grele, John) (Filed on 2/14/2006)

Feb. 14, 2006

Feb. 14, 2006

RECAP
60

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Michael A. Morales. Michael A. Morales served on 1/19/2006, answer due 2/8/2006. (Grele, John) (Filed on 2/14/2006)

Feb. 14, 2006

Feb. 14, 2006

PACER
62

ORDER DENYING CONDITIONALLY PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by Judge Jeremy Fogel (jfsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/14/2006)

Feb. 14, 2006

Feb. 14, 2006

RECAP
63

RESPONSE in Support redacted statement of compliance with conditional injunction filed byRoderick Q. Hickman, Steven Ornoski. (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 2/15/2006)

Feb. 15, 2006

Feb. 15, 2006

PACER
64

MOTION for Discovery of Information filed by Michael A. Morales. (Grele, John) (Filed on 2/15/2006)

Feb. 15, 2006

Feb. 15, 2006

PACER
65

Reply Memorandum Plaintiff's Response to Modification of Procedure filed byMichael A. Morales. (Grele, John) (Filed on 2/16/2006)

Feb. 16, 2006

Feb. 16, 2006

PACER
66

AFFIDAVIT supplemental response to denial of injunction by Roderick Q. Hickman, Steven Ornoski. (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 2/16/2006)

Feb. 16, 2006

Feb. 16, 2006

PACER
67

FINAL ORDER RE DEFENDANTS' COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS; ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR DISCOVERY OF INFORMATION AND FOR RECONSIDERATION. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 2/16/06. (jfsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/16/2006)

Feb. 16, 2006

Feb. 16, 2006

RECAP
68

NOTICE OF INTELOCUTORY APPEAL as to [67] Order, [62] Order on Motion to Shorten Time, Order on Motion for TRO by Michael A. Morales. Filing fee $ 255.00, receipt number 338190. (gm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/17/2006) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/28/2006 (gm, COURT STAFF). (Main Document 68 replaced on 5/17/2019) (rcsS, COURT STAFF).

Feb. 17, 2006

Feb. 17, 2006

PACER

Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to USCA

Feb. 17, 2006

Feb. 17, 2006

PACER
69

AFFIDAVIT notice of lodging declarations under seal by Roderick Q. Hickman, Steven Ornoski. (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 2/17/2006)

Feb. 17, 2006

Feb. 17, 2006

PACER

Notice of Appeal Notification

Feb. 17, 2006

Feb. 17, 2006

PACER
70

NOTICE TO COUNSEL OF RECEIPT OF DECLARATIONS. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 2/17/06. (jfsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/17/2006)

Feb. 17, 2006

Feb. 17, 2006

RECAP

Copy of Notice of Appeal and Docket sheet mailed to all counsel (gm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/17/2006)

Feb. 17, 2006

Feb. 17, 2006

PACER

Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 68 Notice of Appeal (gm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/17/2006)

Feb. 17, 2006

Feb. 17, 2006

PACER
71

Ex Parte Application for compliance order filed by Michael A. Morales. (Grele, John) (Filed on 2/20/2006)

Feb. 20, 2006

Feb. 20, 2006

PACER
72

Proposed Order for compliance by Michael A. Morales. (Grele, John) (Filed on 2/20/2006)

Feb. 20, 2006

Feb. 20, 2006

PACER
73

MOTION to Amend/Correct Defendants' motion to proceed with alternative method of execution filed by Roderick Q. Hickman, Steven Ornoski. (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 2/21/2006)

Feb. 21, 2006

Feb. 21, 2006

PACER
74

ORDER by Judge Jeremy Fogel denying petitioner's ex parte application and motion for stay (awb, COURT-STAFF) (Filed on 2/21/2006)

Feb. 21, 2006

Feb. 21, 2006

RECAP
79

TRANSCRIPT of Telephonic Proceedings held on 2/21/2006 before Judge Jeremy Fogel. Court Reporter: Peter Torreano.. (gm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/21/2006) (Entered: 02/22/2006)

Feb. 21, 2006

Feb. 21, 2006

PACER
75

Minute Entry: Motion to Proceed with Execution hearing held on 2/21/2006 before Judge Jeremy Fogel (Date Filed: 2/21/2006). The motion is taken under submission. (Court Reporter Peter Torreano.) (dlm, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/21/2006)

Feb. 21, 2006

Feb. 21, 2006

PACER
76

Reply Memorandum in Opposition to Modification filed byMichael A. Morales. (Grele, John) (Filed on 2/21/2006)

Feb. 21, 2006

Feb. 21, 2006

PACER
77

Declaration in Support of [76] Reply Memorandum Fifth Declaration of Dr. Heath filed byMichael A. Morales. (Related document(s)[76]) (Grele, John) (Filed on 2/21/2006)

Feb. 21, 2006

Feb. 21, 2006

PACER
78

ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO PROCEED WITH EXECUTION UNDER ALTERNATIVE CONDITION TO ORDER DENYING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 2/21/06. (jfsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/21/2006)

Feb. 21, 2006

Feb. 21, 2006

RECAP
80

Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to California Appellate Project. (gm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/21/2006) (mhpsec, COURT STAFF).

Feb. 21, 2006

Feb. 21, 2006

PACER
82

MOTION for Attorney Ginger Anders for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice (FEE PAID) filed by Michael A. Morales. (gm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2006) (mhpsec, COURT STAFF).

Feb. 22, 2006

Feb. 22, 2006

PACER

Received Order re 85 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice by Michael A. Morales. (gm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2006)

Feb. 22, 2006

Feb. 22, 2006

PACER
83

MOTION for Attorney Janice H. Lam for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice (FEE PAID) filed by Michael A. Morales. (gm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2006) (mhpsec, COURT STAFF).

Feb. 22, 2006

Feb. 22, 2006

PACER
84

MOTION for Attorney Stephanie L. Reinhart for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice (FEE PAID) filed by Michael A. Morales. (gm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2006) (mhpsec, COURT STAFF).

Feb. 22, 2006

Feb. 22, 2006

PACER

Received Order re 84 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice by Michael A. Morales. (gm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2006)

Feb. 22, 2006

Feb. 22, 2006

PACER
85

MOTION for Attorney Richard P. Steinken leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice (FEE PAID) filed by Michael A. Morales. (gm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2006) (mhpsec, COURT STAFF).

Feb. 22, 2006

Feb. 22, 2006

PACER

Received Order

Feb. 22, 2006

Feb. 22, 2006

PACER

Received Order re 83 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice by Michael A. Morales. (gm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2006)

Feb. 22, 2006

Feb. 22, 2006

PACER

Received Order re 82 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice by Michael A. Morales. (gm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2006)

Feb. 22, 2006

Feb. 22, 2006

PACER
81

ORDER SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 2/23/06. (jfsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/23/2006) Modified on 2/23/2006 (jfsec, COURT STAFF).

Feb. 23, 2006

Feb. 23, 2006

RECAP
86

Emergency Ex Parte Application for Stay of Execution received by the Court 2/21/06 at 12:07 A.M. filed by John R. Grele on behalf of Plaintiff Michael A. Morales. Order issued [74] (jfsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/27/2006)

Feb. 27, 2006

Feb. 27, 2006

PACER
88

ORDER by Judge Jeremy Fogel granting [82] Motion for Attorney Ginger Anders for admission Pro Hac Vice (gm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/2/2006) (mhpsec, COURT STAFF).

March 2, 2006

March 2, 2006

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

Criminal Justice (Other)

Key Dates

Filing Date: Jan. 11, 2006

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Death-row inmates at California’s San Quentin State Prison

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

ACLU of Northern California

Public Interest Lawyer: Unknown

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

California Department of Corrections, State

Defendant Type(s):

Corrections

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Litigation

Issues

General:

Habeas Corpus

Affected Gender:

Male

Death Penalty:

Lethal Injection - Chemicals Used

Lethal Injection - General

Lethal Injection - Staffing (including physician)