IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH ...

1 Case: 10-99019 09/26/2010 Page: 1 of 51 ID: 7487210 DktEntry: 3. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS . FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. MICHAEL ANGELO MORALES and ) CA No. ALBERT BROWN, ). ) No. 5-6-cv-219-JF-HRL. Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) No. 5-6-cv-926-JF-HRL. v. ). ). MATTHEW CATE, Secretary of the ) DEATH PENALTY CASE. Department of Corrections and ). ) No. 5-6-cv-1793-JF-HRL. Rehabilitation, et al., ). Defendants-Appellees. ). BRIEF OF APPELLANT; IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE. NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. HONORABLE JEREMY FOGEL. UNITED STATES District Judge JOHN R. GRELE DAVID A. SENIOR. Law Office of John R. Grele McBreen & Senior 149 Natoma Street, Third Floor 2029 Century Park East, Third Floor San Francisco, Ca 94105 Los Angeles, California 90067.

2 Tel: 415-348-9300 Tel: 310-552-5300. Fax: 415-348-0364 Fax: 310-552-1205. ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT-PETITIONER ALBERT BROWN. Case: 10-99019 09/26/2010 Page: 2 of 51 ID: 7487210 DktEntry: 3. TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAGE. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .. 1. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES .. 1. STATEMENT OF THE CASE .. 3. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS .. 6. SUMMARY OF 15. 20. I. THE DISTRICT COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY. DENYING A STAY .. 20. A. Standard of Review .. 20. B. Applicable Law .. 20. C. Brown is Likely to Succeed on the 21. D. The Relative Harms to the Parties of Not Granting a Stay Weigh Greatly in Brown s Favor .. 30. E. As the District COURT Correctly Found, Brown Did Not Delay in Seeking a Stay, but Rather, Defendants . Conduct Has Precluded an Orderly Review of the New 32. i Case: 10-99019 09/26/2010 Page: 3 of 51 ID: 7487210 DktEntry: 3.

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAGE. II. A FEDERAL COURT MAY NOT CONDITION THE PROTECTION OF. A ONDEMNED INMATE S EIGHTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO BE. FREE OF CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT ON HIS. RELINQUISHMENT OF HIS STATE LAW RIGHT TO HAVE. EXECUTION PROTOCOLS DEVELOPED IN COMPLIANCE WITH. STATE REGULATORY PROCEDURES .. 33. III. BROWN CANNOT MAKE AN INFORMED, KNOWING. AND VOLUNTARY DECISION TO ELECT EXECUTION. BY A ONE-DRUG PROTOCOL WHEN HE HAS TO. MAKE THAT DECISION IN JUST OVER 24 HOURS, WITH EXECUTION IMMINENT, AND WITHOUT. CRITICAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROTOCOL .. 36. IV. THE ORDER VIOLATES MR. BROWN S STATUTORY. RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION AND THE. ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL .. 37. CONCLUSION .. 41. STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES .. 42. CERTIFICATE OF 43. CERTIFICATE OF 44. ADDENDUM .. 45. ii Case: 10-99019 09/26/2010 Page: 4 of 51 ID: 7487210 DktEntry: 3.

4 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES. FEDERAL CASES PAGE(S). Baze v. Rees, 553 35 (2008).. passim Beardslee v. Woodford, 395 1064 (9th Cir. 2005) .. 28. Brown v. Ayers, 129 S. Ct. 63 (2008) .. 2. Brown v. Ornoski, 503 1006 (9th Cir. 2007) .. 1, 2. Brown v. Vasquez, 952 1164 (9th Cir. 1991).. 38. Cooper v. Rimmer, 379 1029 (9th Cir. 2004) .. 21. Fierro v. Gomez, 77 301 (9th Cir. 1996).. 35. Harbison v. Bell, 129 S. Ct. 1481 (2009) .. 38. Jonah R. v. Carmona, 446 1000 (9th Cir. 2006) .. 37. Lockhart v. Terhune, 250 1223 (9th Cir. 2001).. 35. McFarland v. Scott, 512 849 (1994).. 38, 39. McNeal v. McAninch, 513 432 (1995).. 16. iii Case: 10-99019 09/26/2010 Page: 5 of 51 ID: 7487210 DktEntry: 3. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES. FEDERAL CASES PAGE(S). Morales v. Hickman, 415 F. Supp. 2d 1037 ( Cal. 2006) .. 2, 5, 6, 7. Morales v. Hickman, 438 926 (9th Cir.)

5 2006) .. 19. Morales v. Tilton, 465 F. Supp. 2d 972 ( Cal. 2006) .. 2, 5, 30. Myers v. Ylst, 897 417 (9th Cir. 1990) .. 37. Nelson v. Campbell, 0541 637 (2004) .. 20. Reynolds v. Strickland, 598 300 (6th Cir. 2010) .. 17. Sell v. UNITED STATES , 539 166 (2003).. 1. Wilson v. UNITED STATES District Ct. for the N. District of Cal, 161 1185 (9th Cir. 1998) .. 15, 16, 20, 31. Vasquez v. Brown, 112 S. Ct. 1778 (1992) .. 38. STATE CASES. Morales v. Cal. Department of Correction and Rehabilitation, 168 Cal. App. 4th 729, 85 Cal. Rptr. 3d 724 (2008) .. passim Morning Star Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 38 Cal. 4th 324 (2006) .. 34. iv Case: 10-99019 09/26/2010 Page: 6 of 51 ID: 7487210 DktEntry: 3. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES. FEDERAL STATUTES PAGE(S). 18 38. 28 1. 28 1. 28 1343 .. 1. 28 2201 .. 1. 28 2202 .. 1. 42 passim STATE STATUTES.

6 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15 passim Cal. Gov. Code 11340 .. 9, 10, 34, 35. MISCELLANEOUS. Fogel, Jeremy, In The Eye Of The Storm: A Judge's Experience In Lethal- Injection Litigation, 35 Fordham Urb. 735, 747 (2008) .. 11, 13. Operational Procedure No. 770 .. 6. v Case: 10-99019 09/26/2010 Page: 7 of 51 ID: 7487210 DktEntry: 3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION. This is an appeal from the district COURT s collateral order of September 24, 2010 denying conditionally [Albert Brown s] motion for a stay of execution, . and related rulings. Appellant s Excerpts of Record filed concurrently herewith ( ER ). ER 7-17. This action arises under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the UNITED STATES Constitution and under 42 1983. The district COURT had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 1331 (federal question), . 1343 (civil rights violations), 2201 (declaratory relief), and 2202 (further relief).

7 This COURT has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 1291. See Sell v. UNITED STATES , 539 166, 176 (2003) (describing orders before final judgment that are appealable collateral orders under 28 1291). In the alternative, the COURT should treat this filing as a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus. The order denying a stay was entered on September 24, 2010. ER 7-17. Brown timely filed a notice of appeal on September 26, 2010. ER 1-4; Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES. 1. Where this COURT expressly found plaintiff was free to intervene in an ongoing 1983 lawsuit challenging California s lethal-injection procedures (Brown v. Ornoski, 503 1006, 1017 & (9th Cir. 2007)), and plaintiff 1. Case: 10-99019 09/26/2010 Page: 8 of 51 ID: 7487210 DktEntry: 3. intervened in a timely fashion, did the district COURT abuse its discretion by denying a stay of execution on the ground that the execution date set by Defendants effectively precludes an orderly review of purportedly new regulations, which are substantially similar to the protocol that had been found likely to create a demonstrated risk 1 of a constitutional violation.

8 2. 2. Whether a federal COURT may force a condemned inmate to choose between his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and his Due Process/state law right to have state execution protocols developed in full compliance with state regulatory procedures. 3. Whether, consistent with the statutory right to counsel and the due process right to make knowing, informed and voluntary decisions affecting constitutional rights, a federal COURT may force a condemned inmate to elect to be executed by either an untested and improvised one-drug lethal injection protocol or a likely unconstitutional three-drug protocol under circumstances in which neither the federal COURT , nor the inmate and his attorney, has access to critical information necessary to evaluate the State s ability to humanely employ either procedure.

9 4. Did the district COURT violate plaintiff s right to equal protection of the law by denying a stay of execution preventing Brown from litigating the same 1. ER 14 (emphasis in original). 2. Case: 10-99019 09/26/2010 Page: 9 of 51 ID: 7487210 DktEntry: 3. claims on the same record as the identically-situated plaintiff Morales? STATEMENT OF THE CASE. Mr. Brown is a California death row inmate. Brown, 503 at 1008. On September 19, 2007, this COURT affirmed the denial of Mr. Brown s federal habeas corpus petition. In denying Mr. Brown s claim that lethal injection constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, the COURT did not view Brown s habeas petition as stating an as applied challenge to California s lethal injection protocol, but rather a general challenge that lethal injection is always unconstitutional in and of itself.

10 Id. at 1017 & The COURT noted that Morales v. Tilton, 465 F. Supp. 2d 972 ( Cal. 2006), and Morales v. Hickman, 415 F. Supp. 2d 1037 ( Cal. 2006), held that the protocol as currently implemented in California may violate the Eighth Amendment, and explained that Brown is free .. to challenge the particular protocol used by the State of California in a [42 ] 1983 action, as did the petitioner in Morales .. 503 at 1017 & The UNITED STATES Supreme COURT denied Brown s petition for a writ of certiorari on October 6, 2008. Brown v. Ayers, 129 S. Ct. 63 (2008) (mem.). At the time Mr. Brown completed his federal habeas proceedings, the State s 2. ER 8. 3. Case: 10-99019 09/26/2010 Page: 10 of 51 ID: 7487210 DktEntry: 3. particular protocol for lethal injection, Operational Procedure 770 ( OP 770 ), was suspended pending state- COURT -ordered revision in compliance with California s Administrative Procedures Act ( APA ).