Michael Wade Nance v. Commissioner, Georgia Department of Corrections

── Michael Wade Nance v. Commissioner, Georgia Department of Corrections ── Case No.: 25-11890 Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: March 19, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-11890 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 03/19/2026 Page: 1 of 14 FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-11890 Oral Argument Calendar ____________________ MICHAEL WADE NANCE, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WARDEN, GEORGIA DIAGNOSTIC AND CLASSIFICATION PRISON, Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-00107-JPB ____________________ Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and NEWSOM and LAGOA, Cir- cuit Judges. USCA11 Case: 25-11890 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 03/19/2026 Page: 2 of 14 2 Opinion of the Court 25-11890 WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge: This appeal requires us to decide whether the district court erred in rejecting a prisoner’s complaint that his execution by lethal injection would violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Michael Nance, a Georgia prisoner sentenced to death, sued prison officials on the ground that there was a substantial likelihood he would suffer severe pain during his execution by pentobarbital. He alleged that his veins were so compromised that the execution team would not be able to establish intravenous access and that his veins would blow even if access were possible. The prison officials’ medical expert exam- ined Nance’s veins the morning of the bench trial and testified that access would not be difficult, and four members of the execution team testified remotely and anonymously. The district court ruled that Nance failed to prove a substantial likelihood that he would suffer severe pain based on his medical records. Nance complains that the district court misapplied the law, committed clear errors in its findings of fact, and erred by allowing the officials’ expert to testify about his examination the morning of trial and by allowing the execution team to testify remotely. Because the district court committed no reversible error, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND Since 2012, the Georgia lethal-injection protocol has re- quired that at least one physician be present “to provide medical assistance during the execution process,” two or more “trained per- sonnel, including at least one . . . Nurse,” be present “to provide USCA11 Case: 25-11890 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 03/19/2026 Page: 3 of 14 25-11890 Opinion of the Court 3 intravenous access,” and three “trained staff members” be present to “inject solutions into the intravenous port(s) during the execu- tion process.” When the condemned prisoner arrives to the execu- tion chamber, the execution team “provide[s] two . . . intravenous accesses,” and “[i]f the veins are such that intravenous access can- not be provided, a Physician will provide access by central venous cannulation or other medically approved alternative.” Two mem- bers of the injection team each inject one syringe of 2.5 grams of pentobarbital, one after the other, and a