When Does a Civil Rights Claim Become a Habeas Corpus Claim?

Hill v. McDonough

Clarence Hill is challenging the constitutionality of the chemical combination used for lethal injections. The question here is whether he must proceed on a action for a writ of Habeas Corpus, or whether he may proceed directly under the Civil Rights Act. The Court describes a Habeas Corpus action as concerning “the lawfulness of the confinement [or the] particulars affecting its duration.” Challenges to the circumstances of confinement, on the other hand, may be brought under the Civil Rights Act. The precedent in this case, Nelson, affirmed that suits can be barred under the Civil Rights Act when success in that suit necessarily implies the invalidity of a prisoner’s sentence, which is not the case here. The Court rejects policy suggestions based on capital punishment litigation tactics, which suggested that because Hill does not propose an alternative method of execution the open-endedness of his case should be considered as an attack on his capital punishment per se, while accepting that if the relief sought would foreclose execution it would be proper to recharacterize the complaint as a Habeas action. Finally, the Court emphasizes that a stay of execution is an equitable remedy, and must therefore balance all interests, and the standard requirements (such as a showing of likely success on the merits) apply