Nance v. Ward

Prisoners may maintain method-of-execution challenges under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, even if their proposed alternative method is not authorized by state law.

Nance, a Georgia death row inmate, challenged his method of execution. Nance presented an as-applied 8th Amendment challenge to lethal injection and proposed the alternative method of firing squad, which Georgia law does not authorize, in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The District Court dismissed Nance’s suit as untimely and the Eleventh Circuit rejected it because § 1983 was “the wrong procedural vehicle,” stating that the claim should have been brought as a habeas petition, which would have been barred as "successive in Nance’s case. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that § 1983 is the appropriate vehicle for a method-of-execution challenge when the proposed alternative method is not authorized under state law. The Court reasoned that method-of-execution claims do not “go to the validity of a conviction or sentence,” as would be necessary for a habeas petition, and are akin to suits “challenging prison conditions” that would commonly be brought under § 1983. In addition, the Court noted that even if Nance prevailed on his claim, the state would not necessarily be prevented from carrying out the execution, further taking the claim out of the habeas realm. Even if a prisoner’s proposed alternative method would require a change in state law, the state is not prevented from making that change, provided the method is “‘feasible’ and ‘readily implemented.’” Therefore, Nance could maintain his suit under § 1983. REVERSED and REMANDED.