DOCKET NO. _______

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 2006

444444444444444444444444444444444

CLARENCE EDWARD HILL

Petitioner,

vs.

WILLIAM McDONOUGH,

SECRETARY FLORIDA

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;

AND

CHARLIE CRIST,

Florida Attorney General,

Respondent(s).

444444444444444444444444444444444

CAPITAL CASE

EXECUTION SCHEDULED FOR

SEPTEMBER 20, 2006, 6:00 P.M.

444444444444444444444444444444444444444

APPLICATION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION

PENDING RESOLUTION OF PETITION

FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

444444444444444444444444444

D. TODD DOSS

Florida Bar No. 0910384

725 Southeast Baya Drive

Suite 102

Lake City, FL 32025-6092

Telephone (386) 755-9119

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER

-1-

REQUEST FOR STAY OF EXECUTION

Petitioner, Clarence Edward Hill, applies to this Court

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201(f) for a stay of his execution,

currently scheduled for September 20, 2006 at 6:00 p.m., and

states as follows:

1. On September 1, 2006, Mr. Hill filed an amended

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States

District Court, Northern District of Florida, Tallahassee

Division. Mr. Hill alleged violations of his right to be free

from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution. On that same date,

the district court denied Mr. Hill’s complaint for declaratory

and injunctive. Thereafter, the district court denied Mr. Hill’s

motion for reconsideration on September 11, 2006.

2. On September 13, 2006, Mr. Hill filed a Notice of

Appeal. On that same date, Mr. Hill filed in the Eleventh

Circuit an Application for a Stay of Execution and for Expedited

Appeal, which was denied on September 15, 2006.

3. Mr. Hill seeks an Order from this Court for a stay of

execution pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201(f), which provides in

part:

In any case in which the final judgment or decree of

any court is subject to review by the Supreme Court on

writ of certiorari, the execution and enforcement of

such judgment or decree may be stayed for a reasonable

time to enable the party aggrieved to obtain a writ of

certiorari from the Supreme Court.

-2-

4. Mr. Hill asks this Court to stay his presently

scheduled execution to allow the Court adequate time to consider

the Petition.

5. This Court's authority to enter a stay of execution has

been analyzed by this Court as involving the following four-part

test:

whether the movant has made a showing of

likelihood of success on the merits and of

irreparable injury if the stay is not

granted; whether the stay would substantially

harm other parties, and whether granting the

stay would serve the public interest. Bundy

v. Wainwright, 808 F.2d 1410, 1421 (11th Cir.

1987). See also, Barefoot v. Estelle, 463

U.S. 880 (1983)

6. Mr. Hill has met the standards attendant to the

granting of a stay of his execution. Each of the criteria is

satisfied in this case.

A. IRREPARABLE INJURY

7. If the requested stay is not issued, Mr. Hill will be

executed at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 20, 2006. This

execution will carry an unacceptably high risk of being conducted

in a torturous manner in violation of Mr. Hill’s Eighth Amendment

right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. This

U.S. 1301, 1306 (1979) (Rehnquist, Circuit Justice, granting a

stay of execution and noting the “obviously irreversible nature

-3-

constitutes irreparable injury and weighs heavily in favor of

1996) (holding that continued pain and suffering resulting from

deliberate medical indifference is irreparable harm).

Additionally, the State’s violation of Mr. Hill’s Eighth

Amendment rights alone validates a presumption of irreparable

1991) (an alleged constitutional infringement will often alone

constitute irreparable harm).

B. HARM TO OTHER PARTIES

8. There will be no harm to other parties if a stay of

execution is granted. Mr. Hill will remain in custody at Florida

State Prison, where he has been held since his conviction and,

most recently, since the stay of execution was entered by the

Supreme Court of the United States on January 25, 2006. A

(Noonan, J., dissenting from grant of writ of mandate) (“The

state will get its man in the end. In contrast, if persons are

put to death in a manner that is determined to be cruel, they

suffer injury that can never be undone, and the Constitution

-4-

suffers an injury that can never be repaired.”)

C. PUBLIC INTEREST

9. Although there are competing public interests,

ultimately one factor favors the issuance of the temporary relief

sought. Certainly, the public has an interest in the execution

of Mr. Hill pursuant to the judgment of the Florida Courts. More

importantly, however, it has an interest in determining that Mr.

Hill’s execution will be carried out consistent the with

requirements of the Eighth Amendment. Additionally, the State

has an interest in not subjecting Mr. Hill to the excruciating

and torturous pain likely involved in the lethal injection

So.2d 657 (Fla. 2000). It is therefore paramount that Mr. Hill’s

weighty constitutional claims be resolved on the merits.

10. Further, as set forth in his petition, by arbitrarily

setting an execution date while this case was awaiting remand,

the State has attempted to manipulate the process and deny Mr.

Hill his right to have this unconstitutional method of execution

reviewed on the merits. Certainly, it is in the public interest

not to permit the State to deprive Mr. Hill of his right to

pursue his claims, and thereby achieve its ultimate goal – to

prevent Florida’s lethal injection procedure from being subjected

to any meaningful scrutiny.

-5-

D. THE LIKELIHOOD THAT MR. HILL WILL PREVAIL ON THE MERITS

11. The likelihood that Mr. Hill will prevail on the merits

of his claims is demonstrated by the discussion presented in

detail in his Petition, which examines recent developments in

similarly situated cases where the merits have actually been

examined. Given the success in those cases, a stay of execution

and full and fair review are appropriate here.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

foregoing has been furnished to Carolyn Snurkowski, Assistant

Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Plaza Level 1,

2006.

/s/ D. Todd Doss

D. Todd Doss

Florida Bar No. 0910384

725 Southeast Baya Drive

Suite 102

Lake City, FL 32025

Telephone: 386-755-9119

Facsimile: 386-755-3181

Attorney for Mr. Hill