The Court ruled unanimously that a challenge to the method of execution as violating the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution properly raised a claim under 42 U.S.C.

[1] At a resentencing hearing in 1986, Hill's death sentence was reinstated, this time being upheld by the Florida Supreme Court.

[5] The precise authority by which lethal injection was to be carried out was left to the Florida Department of Corrections.

The Florida Department of Corrections does not publish its information about lethal injection, and so the only source available describing Florida's use of the lethal injection death penalty comes from Sims v. State,[6] which indicated that the lethal injection death penalty was carried out by first administering sodium thiopental, an anesthetic, then pancuronium bromide, which paralyzes the lungs, and followed lastly by potassium chloride, which inflicts cardiac arrest.

On November 29, 2005, Florida Governor Jeb Bush signed a warrant for Hill's execution, which was to be carried out on January 24, 2006.

Upon the signing of his death warrant, Hill requested information from the Department of Corrections regarding the specific methods by which lethal injection were carried out.

The Circuit Court for Escambia County denied Hill's motions for postconviction relief and for an evidentiary hearing.

1983, challenging that Florida's lethal injection death penalty would cause great bodily harm in violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

The next day, the U.S. District Court denied Hill's petition, contending that standing case law was clear on the matter of jurisdiction.

The same day, Hill petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari and requested a stay of execution.

Assisting him in the appeal are Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Ian Heath Gershengorn, and Eric Berger, all of whom are from Jenner & Block LLP.

1983, Hill argues that the procedures for carrying out lethal injection as prescribed by the Florida Department of Corrections are intended to violate his Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment.

The government contends that, because the end result of Hill's suit is to challenge a death sentence, the claim must be filed under the 28 U.S.C.

Whether, under this Court’s decision in Nelson, a challenge to a particular protocol the State plans to use during the execution process constitutes a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C.

Citing Nelson v. Campbell,[11] Hill argues that, because his petition is only challenging the method by which the state of Florida intends to execute him, and not the death sentence itself, the Court is required to entertain his petition, and, accordingly, requests the Eleventh Circuit's ruling be reversed.