Felker v. Turpin
Docket: 96-9334
Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; November 12, 1996; Federal Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Ellis Wayne Felker and Larry Grant Lonchar, Georgia inmates sentenced to death, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging the use of electrocution as cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court denied their request for a preliminary injunction and declaratory relief, concluding they had no chance of success on the merits, and subsequently entered a final judgment against them. The Eleventh Circuit granted expedited review of their appeal, which centers on whether the district court erred in denying relief on the Eighth Amendment claim. The court determined that the § 1983 claim is subject to procedural requirements for second or successive habeas corpus petitions. Citing Gomez v. United States District Court, the Eleventh Circuit noted that a plaintiff cannot circumvent habeas rules by filing a § 1983 claim if the underlying issues were not raised in prior habeas petitions. Thus, the plaintiffs' § 1983 claim is treated as a second habeas petition, requiring permission to file under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), which they failed to obtain. Additionally, Felker's claim did not meet the requirements for filing a second petition, as it did not rely on a new constitutional rule or present new factual circumstances that could not have been discovered earlier. Therefore, the district court lacked authority to consider their request for relief. Any application by Felker to file a second habeas petition would be denied since he presented the same claim in a prior federal habeas petition, which mandates dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). Even if the plaintiffs’ action were deemed appropriate under § 1983, the district court correctly denied their claim, as established precedent indicates that death by electrocution does not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Claims that there has been no evidentiary hearing regarding the effects of electrocution are unfounded; multiple cases have considered expert evidence on this matter. Lonchar's § 1983 claim is also barred by issue preclusion, as he previously raised the same issue in his federal habeas petition. A prior federal habeas decision can preclude a subsequent § 1983 claim. Ultimately, whether viewed as a § 2254 or § 1983 claim, the plaintiffs’ claim for relief is rejected, and the district court's judgment is affirmed.