Adams v. Bradshaw
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
2Per curiam
We remanded this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus case to the district court for factual development of Ohio death-row inmate Stanley Adams’s claim that Ohio’s lethal-injection procedures violated his Eighth Amendment rights. Upon remand, Warden Margaret Bradshaw moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Relying on Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573, 126 S.Ct. 2096, 165 L.Ed.2d 44 (2006), the Warden argued that federal courts lack jurisdiction to consider Adams’s lethal-injection claim under § 2254 and that such a claim is cognizable only under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court denied…
3Cases cited5 opinions
- Preiser v. RodriguezSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Muhammad v. CloseSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Nelson v. CampbellSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Hill v. McDonoughSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
- Terrell v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2009
4Cited by65 opinions
- Craig Wilson v. Mark WilliamsCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2020
- Shaker Aamer v. Barack ObamaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2014
- Addones Spencer v. Anthony HaynesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2014
- Michael Bailey v. Lyneal WainwrightCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2020
- Carlos Poree v. Kandy CollinsCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2017
60 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.