Cook
Cook v. Brewer
Opinion
Opinion
Plaintiff Daniel Wayne Cook (“Cook”) appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim. We affirm.
I
We have already upheld the district court’s denial of Cook’s first complaint seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“§ 1983”). Cook v. Brewer, 637 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir.2011). That complaint, like the instant one, asserted that the Arizona Department of Corrections’ (“ADC”) intended use of imported, non-Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) approved, sodium thiopental in Cook’s execution violates his Eighth Amendment rights because it is very likely to cause Cook needless suffering. We held that Cook’s speculative and conclusory allegations were insufficient to state a facially plausible claim that the sodium thiopental the ADC had obtained is “ ‘sure or very likely to cause serious illness and needless suffering’ ” in violation of his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Id., 637 F.Bd at 1006-08 (quoting Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35, 50, 128 S.Ct. 1520 , 170 L.Ed.2d 420 (2008)).
On March 25, 2011, Cook filed the instant suit raising the same claim against the same Defendants. The primary differ ence between the two…