Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Ernest Johnson v. Anne L. Precythe, et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, No. 17-2222 · judgment April 1, 2020
Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.
Questions presented
In Bucklew v. Precythe, 139 S. Ct. 1112 (2019), this Court held, at the summary judgment stage and on the record in that case, that the State had a legitimate penological justification for rejecting the inmate’s proffered alternative method of execution because that method had not previously been used to perform an execution, and the inmate had presented no evidence that the method had been studied or could be carried out. The questions presented are:
-
Whether Bucklew established a categorical rule that a State may obtain dismissal of an Eighth Amendment method-of-execution claim by proffering a reason for rejecting the plaintiff’s opposed alternative method of execution that is legitimate in the abstract, regardless of whether the plaintiff has plausibly alleged that the State’s proffered reason is not legitimate or sufficient on the facts of the case.
-
In the alternative, whether the court of appeals’ refusal to permit petitioner, after this Court’s decision in Bucklew was issued, to amend his complaint to propose a previously-used alternative method of execution warrants summary reversal.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Ginger D. Anders
Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP
For respondent
Katharine Anne Dolin
Office of the Missouri Attorney General
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 12 conferences
Argument & decision
Decided May 24, 2021.
Proceedings
- May 24 2021Petition DENIED. Justice Breyer, dissenting from the denial of certiorari. (Detached Opinion) Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Breyer and Justice Kagan join, dissenting from the denial of certiorari. (Detached Opinion)
- May 17 2021DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/20/2021.
- May 10 2021DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/13/2021.
- Apr 26 2021DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/30/2021.
- Apr 26 2021Supplemental brief of respondents Anne Precythe, et al. filed.
- Apr 12 2021Supplemental Letter of petitioner Ernest Johnson filed.
- Mar 29 2021The parties are directed to file supplemental letter briefs addressing the following question: Given that the District Court dismissed without prejudice, would petitioner be barred from filing a new complaint that proposes the firing squad as the alternative method of execution? The petitioner’s brief, not to exceed 5 pages, is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before Monday, April 12, 2021. The respondents’ brief, not to exceed 5 pages, is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before Monday, April 26, 2021.
- Mar 22 2021DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/26/2021.
- Mar 15 2021DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/19/2021.
- Mar 01 2021DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/5/2021.
- Feb 22 2021DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/26/2021.
- Feb 12 2021DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/19/2021.
- Jan 19 2021DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/22/2021.
- Jan 11 2021DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/15/2021.
- Jan 04 2021DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021.
- Dec 08 2020Rescheduled.
- Nov 24 2020DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/11/2020.
- Nov 23 2020Reply of petitioner Ernest Johnson filed. (Distributed)
- Nov 04 2020Brief of respondents Anne Precythe, et al. in opposition filed.
- Oct 02 2020Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 4, 2020.
- Oct 01 2020Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 5, 2020 to November 4, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
- Aug 28 2020Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 5, 2020)