concluding that a § 1983 method-of-execution challenge should be construed as an motion for leave to file a successive habeas petition, which was denied
How later courts described this case
- concluding that a § 1983 method-of-execution challenge should be construed as an motion for leave to file a successive habeas petition, which was denied
- one judge concurring on different grounds, one judge dissenting, and a close split among the judges in denying the petition for en banc review
- cited with approval in Central Iowa Power Coop. v. Midwest Indep. Transmission Operator, Inc., 561 F.3d 904, 914 (8th Cir. 2009)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CLAY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting in part.
I dissent from the panel’s denial of the motion to stay the execution and the grant of the motion to dismiss the appeal. My reasons for dissenting are set forth in my dissent to the panel’s prior order of January 13, 2004, in Case No. 04-3044, and in my dissent to the en banc Court’s order of January 30, 2004, in Case Nos. 04-3044/3066.