Application — James Duckett, et al., Applicants v. Ron Desantis, Governor of Florida, et al.

*** CAPITAL CASE ***

DOCKET NO.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

═════════════════════════════════

JAMES AREN DUCKETT, et. al.,

Petitioners,

vs.

RON DESANTIS,

Governor, State of Florida, et al.,

Respondents.

═════════════════════════════════

APPLICATION FOR A STAY OF EXECUTION

AND EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF

CERTIORARI

DEATH WARRANTS SIGNED

EXECUTIONS SET JULY 28, 2026, AT 12:00 P.M. AND 6:00 P.M.

═════════════════════════════════

To the Honorable Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court

of the United States and Circuit Justice for the Eleventh Circuit:

James Duckett is scheduled to be executed July 28, 2026, at 12:00 PM EDT

and Dominick Occhicone is scheduled to be executed six hours later on July 28, 2026

at 12:00 PM EDT. Petitioners sought stays of execution from the Eleventh Circuit.

On July 26, 2026, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial of

Petitioner’s Emergency Motion for Stays of Execution. James Aren Duckett, et al. v.

Ron DeSantis, et al., No. 26-12595 (Fla. July 26, 2026).

Petitioners respectfully request a stay of both executions pending this Court’s

disposition of the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (“Petition”), filed simultaneously

with this Application, and expedited consideration of the Petition.

1

JURISDICTION

This Court has jurisdiction to entertain Petitioners’ Petition and this

Application for a Stay of Execution under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1254 and 1201(f).

BACKGROUND

On February 27, 2026, Governor DeSantis signed a death warrant for Mr.

Duckett, initially setting his execution for March 31. At the outset of his warrant

proceedings, the state circuit court granted DNA, finding that identity was an issue

at Mr. Duckett’s trial and that results excluding Mr. Duckett would lead to an

acquittal (WR1. 748). Mr. Duckett litigated his access to DNA testing over the next

several months.

In the meantime, on June 26, 2026, the Governor signed an execution warrant

for Mr. Occhicone, scheduling his execution for July 28, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. Mr.

Occhicone promptly raised challenges to Florida’s lethal injection execution protocols,

drawing attention to Florida’s deviation from its established protocols by using

expired drugs. He further alerted the courts to his declining health and advanced age

that put him at risk of needless suffering.

Following the State’s knowing selection of a destructive testing methodology

that was unable to produce a definitive result, independent testing of the best

evidence in Mr. Duckett’s case was eliminated. He then sought DNA testing of similar

items that would provide a comparable means of identifying the true perpetrator

(WR3. 36). In response to his motions, the Governor reset Mr. Duckett’s execution for

two weeks later on July 28 at 12:00 p.m., just six hours before Mr. Occhicone’s.

2

After the execution was reset, a staff member of the prison met with Mr.

Duckett and analyzed his veins in anticipation of his execution. Upon learning that

Mr. Duckett had received chemotherapy treatments for cancer, the person conducting

the examination informed Mr. Duckett that chemotherapy “really messes up the

veins.” Mr. Duckett also then asserted challenges to the scheduled execution,

emphasizing the concerns that he will also suffer a substantial risk of a torturous and

botched execution.

Neither Petitioner was on notice that a dual execution was a possibility.

Florida’s lethal injection protocols are silent as to any considerations for same-day

procedures, and Florida has not attempted to execute two people on the same day

since 1964 when the state’s executions were done by electrocution. Never has Florida

attempted two executions on the same day using lethal injection.

REASONS FOR GRANT THE STAY

An application for stay of execution is evaluated under the familiar four-factor

test that analyzes:

(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing

that he is likely to succeed on the merits;

(2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured

absent a stay;

(3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure

the other parties interested in the proceeding; and

(4) where the public interest lies.

Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009). For the reasons discussed below, a stay is

appropriate here.

3

A.

Petitioners have shown a reasonable likelihood of success on

the merits of their claims.

Petitioners allege that, given the State of Florida’s intention to execute two

capital defendants on the same day, Respondents create a substantial risk that the

Petitioners will experience pain and suffering in violation of the Eighth Amendment

and in violation of their rights to Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Eighth Amendment’s guarantee of protection from cruel and unusual

punishment applies both at sentencing and in the carrying out of the sentence.

Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. 863, 877 (2015). By combining Mr. Duckett’s execution day

with Mr. Occhicone’s, the risk of a botched execution is exponentially increased due

to factors including the impact of the prison and execution teams not being prepared

to conduct two executions on the same day and the risk of errors with the lethal

injection drugs. Additionally, by creating two separate classes of individuals who are

treated differently in their execution proceedings, Respondents have violated

Petitioners’ right to equal protection. This arbitrary treatment burdens the

Petitioners’ right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment.

In the last two instances where states have tried to execute two people at once,

the executions were botched. These are the only attempts at dual executions made in

the United States in 25 years. During the execution of Clayton Lockett in Oklahoma,

multiple failures in the intravenous line and execution protocol resulted in a

prolonged and visibly distressing execution that lasted approximately 43 minutes

before Mr. Lockett died of a heart attack, prompting the State to halt scheduled

executions pending an investigation. Likewise, in 2017, Kenneth Williams was

4

executed as the fourth prisoner in an unprecedented eight-day execution schedule in

Arkansas. Witnesses reported repeated convulsive movements, coughing, and

prolonged physical distress during the execution, leading numerous observers and

experts to question whether the compressed execution schedule contributed to

procedural failures and an unconstitutional risk of unnecessary pain. These incidents

demonstrate that accelerated execution schedules place extraordinary strain on

personnel and procedures, increasing the likelihood of constitutional violations.

Where a State elects to conduct multiple executions in rapid succession, it

knowingly heightens the risk that errors in preparation, administration, or

monitoring will inflict gratuitous suffering, precisely the type of risk the Eighth

Amendment prohibits. See Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35, 50 (2008) (plurality opinion)

(recognizing that the Eighth Amendment forbids execution methods presenting a

“substantial risk of serious harm”); Glossip, 576 U.S. at 877-78. Contrary to the lower

court’s finding, the showing need not be an absolute certainty, indeed, such a

standard would be impossible to meet, thus failing to meet constitutional scrutiny.

Petitioner Duckett has similar vein issues to Mr. Lockett, the defendant in

Oklahoma who lived through a botched execution in 2014. Mr. Duckett learned

earlier this week that chemotherapy treatments “really mess up the veins” after a

prison staff member examined Mr. Duckett and had difficulty finding a vein.

As a result, venal access will likely require multiple painful needle insertions

and blind attempts by the IV Team to locate the two required suitable veins. (Pet.

App. F, 73a) (10)(h) (execution team members to designate two separate IV lines)).

5

Even if the IV Team eventually does obtain intravenous access on Mr. Duckett to

administer the lethal drugs, Mr. Duckett’s vein will likely lose structural integrity

during the execution, leading to extravasation—the leakage of etomidate, rocuronium

bromide, and potassium acetate into the soft tissue surrounding the vein.

Extravasation can have two severely painful results: (1) an inadequate and/or

inconsistent drug delivery, which can cause a prolonged and only partially

anesthetized execution; and (2) an intense burning of the tissues surrounding the

vein.

Assuming the IV Team is even able to find and enter the necessary two veins,

the risk of extravasation means that Mr. Duckett will then be at substantial risk to

experience even more intense pain as a result of a prolonged and only partially

anesthetized execution as his soft tissue burns within his body. Given the fact that

the executioner will not be in the same room as Mr. Duckett, it is unlikely they will

even be aware of the fact that extravasation has occurred.

Mr. Occhicone is set to be executed just one month shy of his 81st birthday. He

has a history of substance abuse, drinking alcohol since the age of 16 and smoking

marijuana daily from the age of 24 until the time of his arrest around the age of 40.

Mr. Occhicone has limited function of his kidneys—varying between 40-60%

function—and his most recent MRI shows multiple cysts on his right kidney. Mr.

Occhicone also has heart issues including an irregular heartbeat, sometimes skipping

a beat and sometimes speeding up, and a blockage of the aorta. There is no question

that Mr. Occhicone’s advanced age and significant health issues put him at a greater

6

risk of complications during the execution procedures.

Both Petitioners have identified health concerns that heighten the risk of

complications when the protocol is applied specifically to them, and rushing the

process only elevates the risk of complications in a process already identified to cause

needless suffering. For example, the protocols require the administration of a 200mg

dose of etomidate without regard to the weight of the individual involved, which has

been referred to as a “massive dose” by the Florida Supreme Court in Long v. State,

271 So. 3d 938, 944 (Fla. 2019). Autopsies of 33 individuals executed in Florida since

2017 show that every inmate executed under the protocol has suffered flash

pulmonary edema. Characterized by rapid flooding of fluid into the lungs, flash

pulmonary edema causes severe air hunger akin to the dyspnea that the Eleventh

Circuit found violative of the Eighth Amendment. See Lee v. Lovelace, No. 26-11864,

2026 WL 1651147 *2 (11th Cir. June 8, 2026) (citation modified) (remanding for

consideration of firing squad as alternative to nitrogen hypoxia), cert. denied,

Lovelace v. Lee, No. 25A1381, 2026 WL 1694504 (U.S. June 11, 2026).

These concerns are not hypothetical when there is evidence that Florida has

deviated from the established protocols resulting in routine maladministration of

critical phases of the process. Florida used expired etomidate in at least four

executions that have occurred in the previous 11 months.

What is more, Florida’s lethal injection protocols are silent on procedures for

conducting multiple executions in quick succession. There can be no confidence in the

7

process where a process does not exist. 1

The facts in the Petition as asserted by Mr. Duckett and Mr. Occhicone warrant

a grant of relief.

B.

There can be no dispute that Petitioners will suffer irreparable

harm absent a stay.

If this Court does not issue a stay, Petitioners will be executed in a manner

that needlessly inflicts pain and suffering. Petitioners will suffer irreparable injury

by being executed on the same day that they would not otherwise suffer were there

executions conducted on separate days. The Eleventh Circuit’s finding to the contrary

is belied by the facts in the record and established law. The threat of an imminent

execution is a presumptive injury. See, e.g., In re Holladay, 331 F.3d 1169, 1177 (11th

Cir. 2003) (“We consider the irreparability of the injury that petitioner will suffer in

the absence of a stay to be self-evident.”); Ferguson v. Warden, Fla. State Prison, 493

F. App’x 22, 26 (11th Cir. 2012) (Wilson, J., concurring) (“As a general rule, in the

circumstance of an imminent execution, this court presumes the existence of

irreparable injury.”).

Notwithstanding the allegations Petitioners have asserted based on

information that is known, both were denied public records requests for additional

information about the process and the execution team. This places capital defendants

in a “[c]atch-22,” wherein they are faulted for “not yet hav[ing] enough information

to raise a ‘colorable’ Eighth Amendment claim” when “[t]he very reason the prisoners

are seeking the records” is to do just that. Trotter v. Florida, 146 S. Ct. 755, 756 (2026)

(Sotomayor, J., statement respecting denial of stay and certiorari).

1

8

C.

The public interest lies in ensuring that the State does not end

a life without adequate due process and the assurance that the

State will not carry out an execution that will result in a

torturous execution.

When assessing the traditional equitable factors of the harm to the opposing

party and the public interest, “[t]hese factors merge when the Government is the

opposing party.” Nken, 556 U.S. at 435. Undoubtedly, the State of Florida has an

interest in the enforcement of criminal judgments. Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573,

584 (2006). When, as here, the Petitioners demonstrate that the enforcement of such

a judgment would be unconstitutional, the public interest weighs in favor of the party

whose constitutional rights will be violated. United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17, 27

(1960) (“[T]here is the highest public interest in the due observance of all the

constitutional guarantees . . . .”). And any harm to the State in delaying Petitioners’

executions is minimal. Hartman v. Bobby, 319 F. App’x 370, 371-72 (6th Cir. 2009).

The public has an interest in the prevention of constitutional violations,

particularly those carried out in the name of the People. See Woodson v. North

Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 303-04 (1976) (“[D]eath is a punishment different from all

other sanctions in kind rather than degree.”). In the context of the death penalty,

where the punishment is “the most irremediable and unfathomable of penalties,”

Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399, 411 (1986), the public interest is best served by

ensuring that no man is subjected to unconstitutionally cruel and unusual

punishment when the movant has met the pleading requirements.

The public interest is best served by ensuring that all death-sentenced

individuals have meaningful access to federal constitutional rights, especially the

9

humane and dignified carrying out of a death sentence. See Ford v. Wainwright, 477

U.S. 399, 409-10 (1986) (The Eighth Amendment seeks “to protect the dignity of

society itself from the barbarity of exacting mindless vengeance” when carrying out

an execution.). Thus, it is in the public interest to address and resolve the merits of

Petitioners’ claims to identify and prevent the unconstitutional risk of causing

gratuitous suffering. See Cooey v. Taft, No. 2:04-cv-1156, 2007 WL 2607583, at *5

(S.D. Ohio 2007) (granting emergency motion for preliminary injunction and stating

“the public interest is served only by enforcing constitutional rights and by the

prompt and accurate resolution of disputes concerning those constitutional rights. By

comparison, the public interest has never been and could never be served by rushing

to judgment at the expense of a condemned inmate’s constitutional rights.”). Allowing

the State to execute a defendant without meaningful review of whether that

execution will violate the Eighth Amendment is adverse to the public interest—more

than any minimal delay that may result from granting Petitioners’ request for a stay

and injunctive relief.

D.

Petitioners have not delayed in bringing their claim.

Finally, Petitioners’ litigation timeline was dictated not by dilatory conduct on

their part. Petitioners learned of the Governor scheduling Mr. Duckett’s execution on

the same day as Mr. Occhicone just after 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday July 24.

Any delay cannot be held against Petitioners.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Petitioners respectfully request that the Court grant this

Application, stay the executions, expedite consideration of their Petition, and grant

10

any other relief that the Court may find just.

Respectfully submitted this the 27th day of July 2026.

11

Respectfully Submitted,

Tel. (954) 713-1284

/s/ Mary E. Wells

MARY ELIZABETH WELLS

Fla Bar. No. 0866067

Law Office of M.E. Wells

623 Grant Street SE

Atlanta, GA 30312

mewells27@comcast.net

*Counsel of Record for Petitioners

/s/ Ali A. Shakoor

ALI A. SHAKOOR

Florida Bar No. 0669830

Assistant CCRC

shakoor@ccmr.state.fl.us

/s/ Debra Roganne Bell

DEBRA ROGANNE BELL

Florida Bar No. 0973068

Assistant CCRC

bell@ccmr.state.fl.us

/s/ Brittney N. Lacy

BRITTNEY LACY

Assistant CCRC-South

Fla. Bar No. 116001

lacyb@ccsr.state.fl.us

ccrcpleadings@ccsr.state.fl.us

/s/ Mahham Syed

Mahham Syed

Florida Bar No. 1049535

Assistant CCRC

syed@ccmr.state.fl.us

/s/ Courtney M. Hammer

COURTNEY M. HAMMER

Assistant CCRC-South

Fla. Bar No. 1011328

hammerC@ccsr.state.fl.us

CAPITAL COLLATERAL

REGIONAL COUNSELMIDDLE REGION

12973 N. Telecom Parkway

Temple Terrace, Florida 33637

T: 813-558-1643

CAPITAL COLLATERAL REGIONAL

COUNSEL-SOUTH

110 SE 6th Street, Suite 701

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

12