Jesse Guardado v. Richard Comerford, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

As a member of this Court observed, Florida’s recent history of noncompliance with its lethal injection protocol “could mask yet additional failings” that implicate the Eighth Amendment. Trotter v. Florida, 146 S. Ct. 755, 755 (2026) (Sotomayor, J., statement respecting denial of certiorari). Amidst additional factual discoveries since Trotter, Petitioner Jesse Guardado initiated a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that he faced a substantial risk of serious harm based on Florida’s failure to adhere to its already risky three-drug protocol, including through the administration of insufficient dosages of drugs, unauthorized drugs, expired drugs, and drugs that are wholly unaccounted for altogether. The State responded with a death warrant. Based on Guardado’s proffered evidence, the District Court for the Middle District of Florida held an evidentiary hearing. There, additional evidence emerged that was “even more concerning” than the allegations of Florida’s documented protocol deviations: When the Department realized that its logs contained inaccurate information about drug expiration dates, its solution was to use WiteOut liquid eraser to alter the logs….The evidence in this case shows that these types of untraceable edits to a log tracking the storage of a drug is “completely inappropriate” and indeed “invalidates the point[] of the records[.]” CA11-ECF 13-1 at 20 (Pryor, J., concurring). Yet despite the emergence of mounting evidence of Florida’s malfeasance, which is at odds with the “paramount importance” of an execution being carried out “consistently with its approved protocol,” Trotter, 146 S. Ct. at 756, the lower courts paved the way for Guardado’s execution and mooting of his pending suit. In a separate concurrence below, Judge Pryor emphasized that the court of appeals’ conclusion “should not in any way signal or suggest that we condone the Department of Corrections’ failure to meet its basic responsibility[.]” CA11-ECF 13-1 at 20. But the district court’s and Eleventh Circuit’s denial of meaningful process in this action removed any opportunity to “instill[] confidence in the [execution] protocol for everyone—prisoners, the courts, and the public alike.” Trotter, 146 S. Ct. at 756.