University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Baker v. Saar CJ-MD-0002
Docket / Court 1:05-cv-03207-WDQ ( D. Md. )
State/Territory Maryland
Case Type(s) Criminal Justice (Other)
Case Summary
On November 28, 2005, a death-sentenced inmate at the Maryland Correctional Adjustment Center in Baltimore, Maryland filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Maryland state law against the Maryland Department of Correction in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland. The plaintiff asked ... read more >
On November 28, 2005, a death-sentenced inmate at the Maryland Correctional Adjustment Center in Baltimore, Maryland filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Maryland state law against the Maryland Department of Correction in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland. The plaintiff asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that the defendants' lethal injection procedures violated his rights because it required the administration of chemicals not authorized by statute and because they do not require a continuous intravenous administration of a short acting barbiturate. The plaintiff alleges that this lack created a substantial likelihood that he would be subjected to torture in violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. He further alleged that the defendants had failed to follow Maryland law (Md. Code Ann., State Gov't §3-905) in adopting their execution protocol because it had not been formally adopted under the Maryland Administrative Procedure Act (MAPA), thereby depriving the state's citizens of the opportunity to ensure that executions were carried out in a proper and humane manner and increasing the risk that executed prisoners would suffer unnecessarily during their executions.

The day after the complaint was filed, the defendants filed a motion for removal of the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1441 and 1446. On November 30, 2005, the plaintiff asked the court to remand the case back to the state court, arguing that the case "touches a sensitive area of social policy upon which the federal courts ought not to enter unless no alternative to its adjudication is open."

On December 1, 2005, the District Court (Judge William D. Quarles, Jr.) denied the plaintiff's motion to stay the execution, finding that the plaintiff raised this complaint merely to delay his execution and that the plaintiff was not harmed by any procedural defect in the adoption of the lethal injection protocol because such a defect did not lead to adoption of a cruel and unusual means of executing him. The court also denied the plaintiff's motion to remand the case back to the state court, finding that the gravamen of the complaint - that the state's execution protocol is cruel and unusual punishment - favors adjudication in the federal courts.

On December 2, 2005, the plaintiff filed a motion asking the District Court to dismiss the complaint that he had filed, and the court granted the motion to dismiss in a paperless order on the same day.

Kristen Sagar - 09/04/2007


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Death Penalty
Lethal Injection - General
Causes of Action State law
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendant(s) Maryland Department of Correction
Plaintiff Description a death-sentenced inmate at the Maryland Correctional Adjustment Center in Baltimore, Maryland
Indexed Lawyer Organizations None on record
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Defendant
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief None
Source of Relief None
Form of Settlement None on record
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year 2005
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Links Philadelphia Forfeiture
http://ij.org/case/philadelphia-forfeiture/
By: Institute for Justice (Institute for Justice)
[ Detail ]

Docket(s)
1:05-cv-03207-WDQ (D. Md.) 12/02/2005
CJ-MD-0002-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Notice of Removal 11/29/2005
CJ-MD-0002-0001.pdf | Detail
Complaint 11/29/2005
CJ-MD-0002-0002.pdf | Detail
Motion to Remand to State Court 11/30/2005
CJ-MD-0002-0003.pdf | Detail
Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Injunction 11/30/2005
CJ-MD-0002-0004.pdf | Detail
Opinion 12/01/2005 (402 F.Supp.2d 606) (D. Md.)
CJ-MD-0002-0007.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Stipulation of Dismissal 12/02/2005
CJ-MD-0002-0006.pdf | Detail
Judges Quarles, William D. Jr. (D. Md.)
CJ-MD-0002-0007 | CJ-MD-0002-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Christopher, Gary W. (Maryland)
CJ-MD-0002-0003 | CJ-MD-0002-0006 | CJ-MD-0002-0007 | CJ-MD-0002-9000
Draper, Franklin W. (Maryland)
CJ-MD-0002-0006 | CJ-MD-0002-0007 | CJ-MD-0002-9000
Lawlor, Michael Edward (Maryland)
CJ-MD-0002-0001 | CJ-MD-0002-0002 | CJ-MD-0002-0003 | CJ-MD-0002-0006 | CJ-MD-0002-0007 | CJ-MD-0002-9000
Proctor, Gary Edward (Maryland)
CJ-MD-0002-0002 | CJ-MD-0002-0003 | CJ-MD-0002-0006 | CJ-MD-0002-9000
Tetrault, Joseph B (Maryland)
CJ-MD-0002-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Curran, John Joseph Jr. (Maryland)
CJ-MD-0002-0001 | CJ-MD-0002-0004
Oakley, Scott S (Maryland)
CJ-MD-0002-0001 | CJ-MD-0002-0004 | CJ-MD-0002-0007 | CJ-MD-0002-9000
Pickus, Philip M. (Maryland)
CJ-MD-0002-9000
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -