Scott v. Mitchell

This matter is before us on petitioner Jay D. Scotts motion for a stay of his execution, scheduled for 9:00 p.m. on this date, and on Scotts appeal from the district courts denial of his supplemental petition for habeas corpus. The district court denied Scotts supplemental petition because it concluded that although the claims raised therein were not procedurally barred under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. § 2244, those claims were without merit. We conclude that Scotts third claim--that execution of the severely mentally ill is prohibited by the Eighth Amendment--is procedurally barred. We further conclude that his first and second claims--that Ohios procedures for determining whether he is competent to be executed and the Ohio courts application of those procedures to him violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment and denied him due process, and that the Ford v. Wainwright test for determining competency to be executed is inadequate in light of contemporary standards of decency--may be considered on their merits because they were not ripe at the time Scott filed his initial habeas petition. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that neither of those claims is meritorious, and we will therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court denying the writ. Finally, we DENY the motion for stay of Scotts execution.