IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
*****
STATE OF NEVADA; NEVADA
Supreme Court Case No.:
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;
District Court No.: A-18-777312-B
JAMES DZURENDA, Director of the
Electronically Filed
Nevada Department of Corrections, in his
Jul 25 2018 05:06 p.m.
official capacity; IHSAN AZZAM, Ph.D,
Elizabeth A. Brown
M.D., Chief Medical Officer of the State of
Clerk of Supreme Court
Nevada, in his official capacity; and JOHN
DOE, Attending Physician at Planned
Execution of Scott Raymond Dozier in his
official capacity,
Petitioners,
vs.
THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK;
AND THE HONORABLE ELIZABETH
GONZALEZ, DISTRICT COURT JUDGE,
Respondents,
and
ALVOGEN, INC.,
Real Party in Interest.
PETITION TO DISSOLVE STAY OF EXECUTION UNDER NRS 176.492 AND
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION
ADAM PAUL LAXALT
Attorney General
ANN M. MCDERMOTT (Bar No. 8180)
Bureau Chief
JORDAN T. SMITH (Bar No. 12097)
Deputy Solicitor General
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
555 East Washington Avenue, Suite 3900
Las Vegas, NV 89101
(702) 486-3894
jsmith@ag.nv.gov

Docket 76485 Document 2018-28597

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS .....................................................................................................i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .............................................................................................iii
ROUTING STATEMENT ................................................................................................. 1
ISSUES PRESENTED ........................................................................................................ 1
I.

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ...................... 2

II.

THE FACTS NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES
PRESENTED BY THE PETITION .................................................................... 6

III.

A.

A Jury Convicts and Sentences Dozier to Death for Murdering and
Mutilating Jeremiah Miller .............................................................................. 6

B.

Dozier Files a State Habeas Action but Later Asks to be Executed......... 8

C.

NDOC’s Supply of Diazepam Expires and It Purchases Midazolam
from Third-Party Cardinal Health ................................................................. 9

D.

NDOC Discloses the Protocol and is Ordered to Identify Drug
Manufacturers ................................................................................................ 13

E.

Alvogen Files Suit on the Eve of the Execution and the District
Court Stays the Execution ............................................................................ 15

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ...................................................... 18
A.

This Court Has Jurisdiction Over this Petition Under NRS 176.492
Because the District Court Improperly Stayed Dozier’s Execution ....... 18

B.

This Court Should Also Exercise Its Original Jurisdiction ...................... 25
1.

A Writ of Mandamus Should Issue to Correct the District
Court’s Erroneous Interpretation and Application of Law .......... 29

i

 2.

NRS 41.700 ......................................................................................... 31

3.

NRS Chapter 453 ............................................................................... 36

4.

Replevin............................................................................................... 40

CONCLUSION AND RELIEF SOUGHT .................................................................... 50
VERIFICATION ................................................................................................................. 51
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ............................................................................. 52
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ........................................................................................ 53

ii

 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
AA Primo Builders, LLC v. Washington,
126 Nev. 578, 245 P.3d 1190 (2010)............................................................................... 21
Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Mendenhall,
113 Nev. 445, 937 P.2d 69 (1997) ................................................................................... 46
Almond Hill Sch. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric.,
768 F.2d 1030 (9th Cir. 1985).......................................................................................... 39
Anse, Inc. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct.,
124 Nev. 862, 192 P.3d 738 (2008)................................................................................. 31
Arizona v. Dozier,
Case No. 1 CA–CR 05–0463 (Ariz. App. Apr. 11, 2006) .............................................. 7
Ashokan v. State, Dep’t of Ins.,
109 Nev. 662, 856 P.2d 244 (1993)................................................................................. 29
Baldonado v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC,
124 Nev. 951, 194 P.3d 96 (2008) ................................................................................... 37
Baze v. Rees,
553 U.S. 35 (2008) ....................................................................................................... 26, 50
Boltz v. Jones,
182 F. App’x 824 (10th Cir. 2006) .................................................................................. 25
Cheung v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct.,
121 Nev. 867, 124 P.3d 550 (2005)................................................................................. 25
Clark Cty. Liquor & Gaming Licensing Bd. v. Clark,
102 Nev. 654, 730 P.2d 443 (1986)................................................................................. 28
Clay v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct.,
129 Nev. Adv. Op. 48, 305 P.3d 898 (2013) ................................................................. 25

iii

 Coleman v. State,
134 Nev. Adv. Op. 28, 416 P.3d 238 (2018) ................................................................. 32
Cox v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct.,
124 Nev. 918, 193 P.3d 530 (2008)................................................................................. 28
Dozier v. Nevada,
567 U.S. 938 (2012)............................................................................................................. 7
Dozier v. State,
128 Nev. 893, 381 P.3d 608, 2012 WL 204569 (2012) ............................................... 6, 7
Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co.,
220 U.S. 373 (1911)...............................................................................................47, 48, 49
Dugar v. Coughlin,
613 F. Supp. 849 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) .................................................................................. 39
Durr v. Strickland,
602 F.3d 788 (6th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................ 39
Garst v. Hall & Lyon Co.,
61 N.E. 219 (Mass. 1901) .............................................................................. 42, 43, 44, 45
Gassman v. Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook Cty.,
71 N.E.3d 783 (Ill. App. 2017) ........................................................................................ 39
Glossip v. Gross,
135 S. Ct. 2726 (2015) ................................................................................................ 10, 14
Guardians Ass’n v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of City of New York,
463 U.S. 582 (1983)........................................................................................................... 27
Hospitality Int’l Grp. v. Gratitude Grp., LLC,
387 P.3d 208, 2016 WL 7105065 (Nev. 2016) ........................................................ 20, 28
Impression Prod., Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc.,
137 S. Ct. 1523 (2017) ...................................................................................................... 42

iv

 In re Kemp,
894 F.3d 900 (8th Cir. 2018) ............................................................................................ 23
John D. Park & Sons Co. v. Hartman,
153 F. 24 (6th Cir. 1907) ......................................................................................41, 42, 45
Jones v. Hobbs,
745 F. Supp. 2d 886 (E.D. Ark. 2010)............................................................................ 39
Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
568 U.S. 519 (2013)........................................................................................................... 42
Ledford v. Comm’r, Georgia Dep’t of Corr.,
856 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2017)........................................................................................ 26
Lee v. GNLV Corp.,
116 Nev. 424, 996 P.2d 416 (2000)................................................................................. 21
Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.,
134 S. Ct. 1377 (2014) ................................................................................................ 31, 32
McKesson Medical-Surgical, Inc. v. Arkansas,
Case No. 60CV-17-1960 (Ark. Cir. Ct. 2017).........................................................passim
NDOC v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct.,
417 P.3d 1117, 2018 WL 2272873 (Nev. 2018) .....................................................passim
Perkins v. Barnes,
3 Nev. 557 (1867).............................................................................................................. 40
Picardi v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct.,
127 Nev. 106, 251 P.3d 723 (2011)................................................................................. 30
Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct.,
61 Nev. 245, 123 P.2d 237 (1942) ............................................................................. 28, 29
Reid v. Johnson,
333 F. Supp. 2d 543 (E.D. Va. 2004) ............................................................................. 19

v

 S. Nev, Labor Mgmt. Cooperation Comm. ex rel. Melendez v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist.,
2016 WL 383147 (Nev. Jan. 28, 2016) ........................................................................... 36
Smith v. Oppenheimer Funds Distrib., Inc.,
824 F. Supp. 2d 511 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) ............................................................................. 39
State ex rel. Armstrong v. State Bd. of Exam’rs,
78 Nev. 495, 376 P.2d 492 (1962) ................................................................................... 29
State ex rel. Friedman v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct.,
81 Nev. 131, 399 P.2d 632 (1965) ................................................................................... 28
State ex rel. Hersh v. First Jud. Dist. Ct.,
86 Nev. 73, 464 P.2d 783 (1970) ..................................................................................... 28
State v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct.,
127 Nev. 927, 267 P.3d 777 (2011)................................................................................. 29
State v. Lafferty,
20 P.3d 342 (Utah 2001) .................................................................................................. 49
State v. Mermis,
20 P.3d 1044 (Wash. App. 2001) .................................................................................... 46
Stephens Media, LLC v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct.,
125 Nev. 849, 221 P.3d 1240 (2009)............................................................................... 29
Taylor v. Barringer,
75 Nev. 409, 344 P.2d 676 (1959) ................................................................................... 20
Tempur-Pedic Int’l, Inc. v. Waste To Charity, Inc.,
2007 WL 535041 (W.D. Ark. Feb. 16, 2007)........................................................... 45, 46
Thomas v. Nev. Yellow Cab Corp.,
130 Nev. Adv. Op. 52, 327 P.3d 518 (2014) ........................................................... 19, 38
Thompson v. Wainwright,
714 F.2d 1495 (11th Cir. 1983)........................................................................................ 27

vi

 Wood v. Ryan,
No. CV-14-1447-PHX-NVW J, 2014 WL 3385115 (D. Ariz. July 10, 2014) ........... 15
Workman v. Bredesen,
486 F.3d 896 (6th Cir. 2007) ............................................................................................ 25
Young v. Johnny Ribeiro Bldg., Inc.,
106 Nev. 88, 787 P.2d 777 (1990) ................................................................................... 20
Constitutional Provisions
NEV CONST. art. VI, § 4....................................................................................................... 25
Statutes
NRS 0.039.............................................................................................................................. 31
NRS 34.160 ........................................................................................................................... 29
NRS 34.170 ........................................................................................................................... 28
NRS 34.320 ........................................................................................................................... 29
NRS 34.330 ........................................................................................................................... 28
NRS 41.031 ........................................................................................................................... 40
NRS 41.032 ........................................................................................................................... 40
NRS 41.700 ....................................................................................................................passim
NRS 104.2401 ....................................................................................................................... 44
NRS 104.2403 ................................................................................................................. 44, 46
NRS 176.355 ..................................................................................................................... 8, 14
NRS 176.415 ..................................................................................................................passim
NRS 176.492 ............................................................................................................... 6, 18, 25

vii

 NRS 453.271 ......................................................................................................................... 38
NRS 453.276 ......................................................................................................................... 38
NRS 453.281 ......................................................................................................................... 40
NRS 453.331 ................................................................................................................... 16, 36
NRS 453.377 ......................................................................................................................... 36
NRS 453.381 ................................................................................................................... 16, 36
NRS 453.391 ................................................................................................................... 16, 36
NRS 453.421 ......................................................................................................................... 36
NRS 453.553 ......................................................................................................................... 38
NRS 454.201 ......................................................................................................................... 36
NRS 454.213 ......................................................................................................................... 36
NRS 454.215 ......................................................................................................................... 36
NRS 454.221 ......................................................................................................................... 36
Other Authorities
Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal
Texts (2012) ........................................................................................................................ 38
BBC News, Drug Company Lawsuit Stalls Nevada Inmate’s Opioid Execution (July 11, 2018)
available at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44797905 ......................... 5
Daily Mail.com, Nevada Murderer’s Execution is Blocked after Pharmaceutical Company
Sues to Stop it Because they Don’t Want their Drug Used to Kill (July 11, 2018) available at
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5943753/Nevada-murderers-executionblocked-drug-companys-lawsuit.html .............................................................................. 6

viii

 Death Penalty Information Center, Execution lists, available at https://deathpenalty
info.org/execution-list-2018 ............................................................................................ 10
John F. Duffy & Richard Hynes, Statutory Domain and the Commercial Law of Intellectual
Property, 102 VA. L. REV. 1 (2016) ................................................................................... 44
Written Testimony of Sen. Wiener on S.B. 7 (Feb. 8, 2007) .................................................... 33
Nevada Assembly Committee on Judiciary (May 3, 2007) ....................................................... 34
Nevada Assembly Committee on Judiciary (May 16, 2007) ...................................................... 35
Nevada Minutes of the Senate Committee on Judiciary (Feb. 8, 2007) ................................ 33, 34
Patrik Jonsson, Outspoken Death-Row Inmate Calls Nevada’s Bluff, Christian Science
Monitor (July 20, 2018) available at https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/
2018/0720/Outspoken-death-row-inmate-calls-Nevada-s-bluff ................................. 6
Rules
NRCP 65 ............................................................................................................................... 28

ix

 ROUTING STATEMENT
The Nevada Supreme Court should retain this matter because it involves the
death penalty. NRAP 17(a)(1). This matter also raises questions of first impression and
nationwide public importance about a district court’s authority to stay an execution and
whether a pharmaceutical manufacturer has a private cause of action against the State
to interfere with an execution. See NRAP 17(a)(10)-(11).
ISSUES PRESENTED
1)

NRS 176.415 allows a stay of execution in only six limited circumstances.

A private third-party’s civil litigation is not among the enumerated circumstances. Did
the District Court offend NRS 176.415 when it granted a pharmaceutical
manufacturer’s request for a temporary restraining order barring the State from using
one of the manufacturer’s drugs in capital punishment when the order’s substantive
effect was to stop a court ordered, imminent execution?
2)

A statutory cause of action extends only to plaintiffs within the statute’s

“zone of interest.” NRS 41.700 is a “social host” law. Is a pharmaceutical manufacturer
within NRS 41.700’s zone of interests and thus able to sue the State?
3)

NRS Chapter 453, the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, contains no

express private right of action. Instead, it only authorizes the State Board of Pharmacy
and Attorney General to bring civil actions, including those for injunctions. Did the
District Court err when it implied causes of action under NRS Chapter 453 and allowed

1

 a pharmaceutical manufacturer to use them as a predicate to the primary claim for a
temporary restraining order?
4)

Under the common law, a use restriction or servitude may attach to real

property, and is enforceable against third parties, but a use restriction will not run down
the stream of commerce with mere chattel or goods. Did the District Court err when it
found that a pharmaceutical manufacturer has an enforceable property interest in its
drugs as against a third-party purchaser, the State, because the manufacturer allegedly
imposed a contractual resale condition on the distributor from whom the State
purchased the drugs?
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
On the morning of Scott Raymond Dozier’s scheduled execution, the District
Court halted the execution based on a legal theory never before accepted in Nevada or
anywhere else in the Nation. In an unprecedented temporary restraining order, the
District Court ruled that pharmaceutical manufacturers have causes of action to stop a
State from using their drugs in a lawful execution. The District Court reached this
conclusion even though the State indirectly purchased the drug from a third-party
intermediary with no contractual obligation—with anybody—to prevent sales to the
State. At the time of the purchase, neither the State nor the third-party distributor had
a legal duty to refrain from buying or selling the drug. And neither the State nor the
third-party distributor needed an elaborate ruse or “subterfuge” to evade supposed

2

 manufacturer sale “controls”—no controls existed, despite the manufacturer’s public
relations comments to the contrary.
The manufacturer, Alvogen, Inc., filed this lawsuit to salvage its image and shift
the blame to the State for Alvogen’s failure to impose the controls that it was touting
to anti-death penalty advocates. For Alvogen (and similarly situated drug
manufacturers), this lawsuit has little downside. Whether it ultimately wins or loses,
Alvogen scores points in the public relations arena just for bringing this lawsuit while it
remains unbothered by the turmoil it has inflicted on Nevada’s criminal justice system
and the victims.
Here, the District Court took the PR bait. It held that purchasers (State or
private) never acquire full title to any product when a manufacturer imposes a use or resale
condition on a distributor. Instead, the District Court found that post-sale restraints on
goods act as restrictive covenants, and create enforceable reversionary interests, that
allow manufacturers to sue third-party purchasers whenever the manufacturer dislikes
how the purchasers use the goods, even if their use is lawful. But unlike real property
covenants, the common law has not recognized servitudes on chattel, personal
property, or goods. Consequently, even if Alvogen had imposed a resale condition on
its distributor (it didn’t), that condition would not run down or attach to the State.
Manufacturers do not retain a property interest in products that their distributors resell
and they cannot sue States to recover lawfully purchased drugs.

3

 The District Court also accepted Alvogen’s boilerplate concerns about business
reputational harm and bad press. In doing so, the TRO put the interests of Big Pharma
over the interests of Nevada’s capital murder victims. But the Nevada Legislature has
rightfully made the State’s and victims’ interests paramount. Last minute execution stays
impose disruption and costs on the justice system and take an emotional toll on victims.
State law thus narrowly restricts the circumstances in which a court may impose a stay.
A drug manufacturer’s lawsuit is not one of them. Accordingly, the District Court
lacked the authority to enter any TRO that had the substantive effect of staying the
execution.
Even if the District Court had the theoretical authority to enter the TRO, the
Legislature has not created a private cause of action that remotely supports Alvogen’s
lawsuit or its requested injunction. Alvogen invokes a social host law and criminal
statutes that do not contemplate, or provide for, private enforcement. The Legislature
did not enact these statutes to protect drug manufacturers’ commercial interests. By
contrast, Nevada’s statutes do contemplate lethal injection using controlled substances.
Nevada’s elected representatives have chosen lethal injection as the State’s method of
execution and have authorized the Nevada Department of Corrections1 to take all
necessary steps to complete its lawful mandate. It is illogical to think that the Legislature

1

This brief refers to Petitioners as the “State” or “NDOC.”
4

 approved lethal injection, on the one hand, yet silently created causes of action to impede
the State’s chosen method of execution, on the other.
The District Court’s ruling will have significant consequences in Nevada and the
other thirty death penalty States. The TRO will not only prevent the execution of
Dozier—a two-time murderer who has voluntarily submitted to his sentence after
sitting on death row for over a decade—it will also open the floodgates for yet another
nationwide wave of death penalty litigation that will stall capital sentences indefinitely.
After condemned inmates battle for decades in state and federal courts, complete
strangers with a strong political and public relations agenda, but a weak connection to
an execution, can for the first time invade the process at the eleventh hour. This time it
was a pharmaceutical company. Next time, in the District Court’s view, it might be the
manufacturers of the IV, the syringe, the needles or, even, the latex gloves. Why not,
for instance, the chef of the inmate’s last meal? It’s easy to see where this road leads.
Every time a commercial interest engages in this newfound litigation tactic, it will
cite the District Court’s ruling. Nevada is now the outlier among the States. The District
Court’s TRO will make it harder to complete duly imposed capital sentences not just in
Nevada, but everywhere—an unfortunate reality that has already received national and
international attention.2 One law professor who studies the death penalty has observed

2

BBC News, Drug Company Lawsuit Stalls Nevada Inmate’s Opioid Execution (July 11,
2018) (“Wednesday’s ruling marks the first time a drug maker successfully sued to block
an execution.”) available at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44797905;

5

 that the District Court’s order “is going to have reverberating effects across any deathpenalty state using drugs or lethal injection.”3
This matter presents straightforward legal questions about when a court may stay
an execution and the existence (or not) of Alvogen’s asserted private causes of action.
The Court needs no further factual development to answer these questions, especially
given the time-sensitive nature and important statewide public policy issues at stake.
Therefore, this Court should dissolve the District Court’s TRO under NRS 176.492 as
an improperly entered stay of execution, or issue a writ of mandamus or prohibition
vacating the TRO.
II. FACTS NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES PRESENTED
BY THE PETITION
A. A Jury Convicts Dozier for Murdering and Mutilating Jeremiah
Miller.
In 2002, Dozier killed Jeremiah Miller at the La Concha Inn in Las Vegas and
gruesomely dismembered Miller’s body in a bathtub. See Dozier v. State, 128 Nev. 893,

Daily Mail.com, Nevada Murderer’s Execution is Blocked after Pharmaceutical Company Sues to
Stop it Because they Don’t Want their Drug Used to Kill (July 11, 2018) (“The previous
challenge, brought last year by a different [intermediary] company in Arkansas,
ultimately
failed
to
stop
the
execution.”)
available
at
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5943753/Nevada-murderers-executionblocked-drug-companys-lawsuit.html.
3
Patrik Jonsson, Outspoken Death-Row Inmate Calls Nevada’s Bluff, Christian Science
Monitor (July 20, 2018) (quoting Deborah Denno) available at https://
www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2018/0720/Outspoken-death-row-inmate-callsNevada-s-bluff.

6

 381 P.3d 608, 2012 WL 204569, at *1 (2012) (unpublished disposition). Dozier cut
Miller’s torso into two pieces, put them in a suitcase, and ditched the suitcase in an
apartment complex dumpster. Id. Authorities never found Miller’s head, lower arms, or
lower legs. Id. Prior to the murder, Dozier “expressed his intention to ‘jack’ a drug
dealer.” Id. Dozier stole money that Miller intended to use to buy methamphetamine
ingredients and spent it on clothes, drugs, and electronics. Id. After the murder,
witnesses saw tools and a gun in Dozier’s hotel room and Miller’s decapitated body in
the bathtub. Id. at *4. Dozier admitted that he killed Miller, and Dozier lamented that
he had not done enough to prevent the police from identifying the body. Id. at *2.
A jury convicted Dozier of first-degree murder and sentenced him to death in
2007. Id. at *1. In 2012, this Court affirmed the conviction in part and rejected Dozier’s
argument that “the death penalty is cruel and unusual.” Id. at *11. The Court held that
“considering the calculated nature in which Dozier murdered the victim and then
severed his body into pieces and disposed of it, the prior murder, and the evidence in
mitigation … Dozier’s death sentence was not excessive.” Id. The United States
Supreme Court denied Dozier’s petition for writ of certiorari. Dozier v. Nevada, 567 U.S.
938 (2012) (mem.).4

4

Arizona courts have also convicted Dozier of another murder. Arizona v. Dozier,
Case No. 1 CA-CR 05-0463 (Ariz. App. Apr. 11, 2006).
7

 B. Dozier Submits to His Sentence but the Case Makes Its Way to This
Court.
After his conviction, Dozier filed a postconviction writ of habeas corpus in state
court. NDOC v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 417 P.3d 1117, 2018 WL 2272873, at *1 (Nev.
2018) (unpublished disposition). Years later, Dozier decided to suspend his habeas
proceeding “and have his duly-imposed death sentence carried out.” Id. The habeas
court, the Honorable Jennifer Togliatti, found Dozier competent to make this decision
and she signed a warrant of execution. See id. As the entity statutorily tasked with
carrying out an execution, NRS 176.355, NDOC released its execution manual and
disclosed its lethal injection protocol using Diazepam, Fentanyl, and Cisatracurium.
NDOC, 2018 WL 2272873, at *2.
“Despite the fact that Dozier had indicated that he did not want to pursue
postconviction relief, [Judge Togliatti] permitted attorneys from the Federal Public
Defender (FPD) to associate with Dozier’s state postconviction attorney.” Id. at *1. The
FPD filed briefs requesting discovery and making claims that using Cisatracurium
would constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. Id. at
**1-2. Judge Togliatti conducted an “evidentiary hearing,” which involved taking
testimony from only one witness. Id. She then enjoined NDOC from using
Cisatracurium and ordered NDOC to execute Dozier using only the other two drugs.
Id. at *2.

8

 NDOC and the Clark County District Attorney filed separate writ petitions for
mandamus or prohibition in this Court seeking to vacate the injunction. See id at *1.
This Court granted the DA’s petition. Id. at **1-3. It held that Judge Togliatti lacked
inherent authority to consider a method of execution challenge within the context of a
habeas corpus proceeding because such a challenge is outside NRS Chapter 34’s narrow
statutory framework. Id. at **2-3. This Court emphasized “that courts should show
‘restraint in resorting to inherent power,’ particularly where the legislature has enacted
a statute or rule covering a certain area.” Id. at *3 (quoting Degen v. United States, 517
U.S. 820, 823-24 (1996); Hunter v. Gang, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 22, 377 P.3d 448, 454-55
(Ct. App. 2016) (“We remind courts that because inherent authority is not regulated by
the Legislature or the people, it is more susceptible to misuse, and thus should be
exercised sparingly.”)). And the Court expressed concern that the FPD did not follow
established procedures. “When proper procedures are followed, the parties, the courts,
and the public tend to understand the type of case being litigated, the overall framework
that applies to it, and the relevant rules and tests that control the ultimate outcome. We
regret that this did not happen here.” Id.
C. NDOC’s Supply of Diazepam Expires and It Purchases Midazolam
from Third-Party Cardinal Health.
While the writ petitions were pending before this Court, NDOC’s supply of
Diazepam expired. (App. 259). As a result, NDOC searched for, and in the ordinary
course of business, ordered an alternative drug—Midazolam—from its usual medical

9

 supplier, Cardinal Health. (Id.; App. 252-54). States have routinely used Midazolam in
lethal injection protocols since Florida first employed it in October 2013. Glossip v. Gross,
135 S. Ct. 2726, 2734 (2015). To date, States have used Midazolam in approximately
thirty-three executions.5 Most recently, Ohio used Midazolam on July 18, 2018.6
As the United States Supreme Court has recounted, States resorted to Midazolam
because “anti-death-penalty advocates pressured pharmaceutical companies to refuse
to supply the [other] drugs used to carry out death sentences.” Id. at 2733. Over time,
States were “unable to acquire sodium thiopental or pentobarbital” so “some States
have turned to midazolam, a sedative in the benzodiazepine family of drugs.” Id. at
2734. The Supreme Court upheld the States’ use of Midazolam against an Eighth
Amendment challenge in Glossip v. Gross. The Court held that “Oklahoma’s use of a
massive dose of midazolam in its execution protocol” does not entail a “substantial risk
of severe pain.” Id. at 2731.

5

See Death Penalty Information Center, Execution lists, available at
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/execution-list-2018.
6
Id. Alvogen and other death penalty opponents often highlight Midazolam’s
presence in the “botched” executions of Clayton Lockett and Joseph Wood. (See App.
162-63). But the problems in those executions were not attributable to Midazolam. As
the United States Supreme Court noted “Oklahoma’s investigation into [Lockett’s]
execution concluded that the difficulties were due primarily to the execution team’s
inability to obtain an IV access site. And the Wood execution did not involve the
protocol at issue here … When all of the circumstances are considered, the Lockett and
Wood executions have little probative value for present purposes.” Glossip, 135 S. Ct.
at 2746.

10

 NDOC ordered Midazolam from Cardinal Health on May 9, 2018 and May 10,
2018, and received it on May 10, 2018 and May 14, 2018, respectively. (App. 252-53).
Alvogen turned out to be the manufacturer of the Midazolam that the State received.
(See App. 186-87, 240-41). Alvogen began selling generic Midazolam in August 2017—
almost four years after Midazolam became a staple of lethal injection protocols across
the country and two years after the Supreme Court approved its use. (App. 185).
Approximately twenty-eight executions used Midazolam before Alvogen started
manufacturing it, and States have used Midazolam five times since.7
When NDOC ordered the Midazolam, Alvogen had no contractual agreement
with Cardinal Health prohibiting Cardinal Health from selling Midazolam to
correctional departments. (App. 186). Richard Harker, one of Alvogen’s Vice
Presidents, attested that Alvogen and Cardinal Health did not enter into an agreement
restricting the sale of Midazolam until May 28, 2018—almost three weeks after
NDOC’s first order. (Id.). On that date, Alvogen and Cardinal Health finally “amended
their Generic Wholesale Service Agreement to include sales under Alvogen’s Controlled
Distribution Program Schedule.” (Id.).8

7

See supra note 5.
Mr. Harker alleges that NDOC ordered additional Midazolam on May 29, 2018,
after Alvogen and Cardinal Health finalized their agreement. (App. 187). That invoice
is not in the record. Nor is there any evidence that NDOC knew that they finalized the
agreement the day before. But, in any event, this factual discrepancy is not material to
the merits of this Petition, as it creates no personal property servitude on the drugs as
discussed below.

8

11

 Alvogen and Cardinal Health signed the underlying Generic Wholesale Service
Agreement eight years earlier, in March 2010. (App. 232). But the parties did not enter
into the addendum to restrict any sales until May 28, 2018. (Id.). In other words,
Alvogen did not impose any legally enforceable restrictions on Cardinal Health’s ability
to sell drugs for more than eight years after they first signed the Generic Wholesale
Service Agreement, and for almost a year after it started to manufacture Midazolam.
Again, no restrictive agreement was in place between Alvogen and Cardinal Health
when NDOC ordered the drug from Cardinal Health.
Instead, Mr. Harker conceded that he was only under the “impression” that
Cardinal Health was not selling Midazolam to correctional departments. (App. 186).
Mr. Harker apparently interpreted the lack of such sales as evidence that Cardinal
Health was refusing to sell to States, although he identified no attempted purchases or
overt refusals to sell. (See id.). Essentially, Mr. Harker equated correlation with causation.
(See id.).
After doing business with Cardinal Health for eight years, and about a year after
manufacturing Midazolam, Mr. Harker recalls that Alvogen and Cardinal Health finally
got around to finalizing a restrictive agreement. He explained, “Alvogen and Cardinal
subsequently entered into negotiations regarding the formal terms on which Cardinal
would restrict such sales.” (Id.) (emphasis added). This belated negotiation process and
the missing formal (i.e. material) terms show that there was no enforceable contract
between Alvogen and Cardinal Health. Even if there was, NDOC is not a party to any
12

 agreement with Alvogen, and neither the Generic Wholesale Service Agreement nor
the Controlled Distribution Program Schedule binds NDOC. Alvogen does not plead
or identify any supposed misrepresentation or omission that NDOC made directly to
Alvogen.
The most Alvogen did to discourage sales to correctional departments was to
send letters to States and to put a nonspecific disclaimer on its website. (App. 240, 24346, 186). The letters, sent before the State’s purchase, expressed an “objection” to using
Alvogen’s products in capital punishment and asked the State to return any products in
its possession. (App. 245). The letters did not claim or hint that Alvogen maintained a
post-sale property interest in drugs sold through its distributors.
Much like its letters, the website disclaimer states that “Alvogen does not accept
direct orders from prison systems or departments of correction.” (App. 186) (emphasis
added). Alvogen “work[s] to ensure its distributors and wholesalers do not resell, either
directly or indirectly this product, to prison systems or departments of correction.” (Id.).
Of course, NDOC did not purchase directly from Alvogen, and Alvogen wasn’t working
with Cardinal Health to restrict the Midazolam sales to NDOC until after the purchases.
D. NDOC Discloses the Protocol and is Ordered to Identify Drug
Manufacturers.
After receiving the drugs from Cardinal Health, NDOC updated its lethal
injection protocol to substitute Midazolam for Diazepam. (App. 259, 261-329). The
protocol now calls for a 500 milligram dose of Midazolam followed by doses of

13

 Fentanyl and Cisatracurium. (App. 311). The 500 milligram dose is the same dose the
United States Supreme Court approved in Glossip. 135 S. Ct. at 2734.
“NDOC presented [the] revised execution protocol to the current Chief Medical
Officer. The current Chief Medical Officer concurred that the drugs in the NDOC
execution protocol (Midazolam, Fentanyl and Cisatracurium) are appropriate and
effective for the use intended.” (App. 259); see also NRS 176.355(2)(b) (requiring the
Director of NDOC to “consult[] with the Chief Medical Officer.”). A short time later,
Judge Togliatti entered a supplemental Order and Warrant of Execution setting the
execution for the week of July 9, 2018. (App. 1-5). NDOC later designated July 11, 2018
as the date for the execution. (See App. 187).
As provided for in the execution manual, NDOC publicly released the updated
manual seven days before the execution, on July 3, 2018. (App. 281) (stating that
NDOC will publish the manual “upon order of the Governor prior to a scheduled
execution.”). The same day, the ACLU of Nevada filed an “emergency” Nevada Public
Records Act action in the First Judicial District Court seeking documents related to the
lethal drugs’ suppliers and manufacturers. (App. 9). Without requiring proper service,
allowing NDOC to file a brief, or informing NDOC that it would sua sponte address the
petition’s merits, the First Judicial District Court arranged a July 5th conference call
with the parties. (See App. 61-62).
On the call, the First Judicial District Court required NDOC to address the
merits. (See App. 62, 64-65). NDOC argued that the requested documents could be
14

 subject to confidentiality claims under the Bradshaw balancing test because “anti-death
penalty advocates use information about where a state obtains execution drugs, such as
that requested by the ACLUNV, to persuade the manufacturer and others to cease
selling that drug for execution purposes.” (App. 64).9 By objecting to disclosing its
name, NDOC argued to protect Alvogen’s identity, and its business reputation. NDOC
had no need to hide its purchase from Alvogen or Cardinal Health because the sales
documentation was readily available to both of them. In the end, the First Judicial
District Court ordered NDOC to produce the requested documents within the next
business day. (See App. 66). Without the ACLU’s lawsuit, and the First Judicial District
Court’s hurried order, NDOC would not have revealed Alvogen as the Midazolam
manufacturer.
E. Alvogen Files Suit on the Eve of the Execution and the District Court
Stays the Execution.
Once NDOC complied with the First Judicial District Court’s order, the public
learned for the first time that Alvogen manufactured the State’s supply of Midazolam.
(App. 186, 235-38, 240-41, 250). The day before the execution, July 10, 2018, Alvogen

9

See Wood v. Ryan, No. CV-14-1447-PHX-NVW J, 2014 WL 3385115, at *6 (D.
Ariz. July 10, 2014) (“The usefulness of the identity of the manufacturer to public
debate on the death penalty is attenuated. The real effect of requiring disclosure,
however, is to extend the pressure on qualified suppliers not to supply the drugs, as has
happened in the past.”) rev’d, 759 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2014), vacated, 135 S. Ct. 21
(2014) (agreeing with the district court).
15

 sued the State. (App. 73). Alvogen also filed an Application for Temporary Restraining
Order and Motion for Preliminary Injunction on an order shortening time. (App. 154).
Alvogen asserted that NDOC obtained the Midazolam through false pretenses,
and that NDOC’s purchase and planned use of the drug violated NRS 453.331(1)(d),
NRS 453.381(1), NRS 453.391(1), and NRS 41.700(1)(a)-(b). These statutes variously
impose criminal penalties for obtaining a controlled substance by “subterfuge” and bar
using controlled substances for certain purposes. (See App. 160-61). Alvogen argued
that it retained a property interest in the drugs, which NDOC converted, entitling
Alvogen to replevin. (App. 176-78). Without identifying the threatened loss of any
specific customer or business relationship during the two business days between
NDOC’s court ordered disclosure and the lawsuit, Alvogen claimed that NDOC’s use
of Midazolam would cause irreparable injury to its business reputation. (App. 180-83).
Alvogen expressed concern about negative media reports and that “the public,
customers, employees, and prospective investors” would think that it “is acting
hypocritically in light of its public stance that its therapeutic products are designed to
enhance human health.” (App. 180). This concern about hypocrisy apparently didn’t
extend to touting product controls while neglecting to impose any actual contractual
conditions on distributors like Cardinal Health.
The District Court scheduled a hearing on Alvogen’s TRO request for the next
morning—the day of the execution. (App. 347). After entertaining argument, the
District Court granted Alvogen’s TRO request. The District Court explained that it did
16

 not consider its ruling “an issue of a stay of execution.” (App. 414). “The issue
presented here,” as the District Court framed it, “is the plaintiff’s right to decide not to
do business with someone, including the government, especially if there’s a fear of
misuse of their product.” (Id.).
The District Court found that, in its opinion, Alvogen has a reasonable
probability of success on the merits because “the State knew its intended use of
midazolam was not one approved by the FDA.” (Id.). Nor was the State a bona fide
purchaser, in the District Court’s view, because Alvogen’s earlier letters purportedly put
the State on notice that Alvogen did not approve using Midazolam for executions. (See
App. 415). Although Alvogen could not identify even a single potentially lost customer,
and merely complained about negative press, the District Court concluded that there is
a reasonable probability that Alvogen “will suffer irreparable damages, including
damages to its business reputation.” (Id.). The District Court “prohibited and enjoined
[the State] from using Alvogen’s product midazolam in capital punishment under
further order of th[e] Court.” (App. 430).
The District Court’s TRO put NDOC into a Catch-22: NDOC was still subject
to Judge Togliatti’s order to complete Dozier’s execution during the week but, because
of the TRO, NDOC could no longer use the approved three drug combination. As a
result, NDOC arranged a conference call with Judge Togliatti and the parties to
Dozier’s habeas case to discuss the TRO’s effect on the execution scheduled for later
that night. (App. 434). Judge Togliatti acknowledged that neither NDOC nor Dozier
17

 was requesting a stay of the execution, but “in light of the Court order from Department
11,” it was “impossible” for NDOC to carry out the execution. (App. 440-41). Judge
Togliatti then entered an order staying her prior execution warrant. (App. 444). Had the
District Court denied Alvogen’s TRO, the execution would have proceeded and Judge
Togliatti would not have been forced to enter this order.
III. REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
A. This Court Has Jurisdiction Over this Petition Under NRS 176.492
Because the District Court Improperly Stayed Dozier’s Execution.
Within ten days of a stayed execution, NRS 176.492 permits a petition to an
appellate court “to dissolve a stay which was improperly entered.” Here, the District
Court’s TRO undeniably had the substance and effect of staying the execution. The
TRO enjoined NDOC from using Midazolam, the first drug in NDOC’s vetted and
approved three-drug combination. Without Midazolam, NDOC no longer had (or has)
the means to carry out the execution. The TRO made it impossible to complete
Dozier’s sentence. On the contrary, if the District Court had denied Alvogen’s request,
the execution would have gone forward. There is thus no question that the District
Court’s ruling produced a stay.
But NRS 176.415 expressly limits the circumstances in which a stay of execution
may issue. It provides:
The execution of a judgment of death must be stayed only:
1. By the State Board of Pardons Commissioners as authorized in
Section 14 of Article 5 of the Constitution of the State of Nevada;
18

 2. By the Governor if the Governor grants a reprieve pursuant to
Section 13 of Article 5 of the Constitution of the State of Nevada;
3. When a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction and
sentence is taken to the appellate court of competent jurisdiction pursuant
to the rules fixed by the Supreme Court pursuant to Section 4 of Article 6
of the Nevada Constitution;
4. By a judge of the district court of the county in which the state
prison is situated, for the purpose of an investigation of sanity or
pregnancy as provided in NRS 176.425 to 176.485, inclusive;
5. By a judge of the district court in which a motion is filed pursuant
to subsection 5 of NRS 175.554, for the purpose of determining whether
the defendant is intellectually disabled; or
6. Pursuant to the provisions of NRS 176.0919 [genetic marker
analysis] or 176.486 to 176.492 [habeas corpus], inclusive.
The Legislature has authorized a stay of execution in these—and only these—
circumstances. Thomas v. Nev. Yellow Cab Corp., 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 52, 327 P.3d 518,
521 (2014) (stating that legislative expression of one thing excludes another). None of
the circumstances apply here. There is certainly no indication that the Legislature
permitted district courts to halt an execution based on a pharmaceutical manufacturer’s
vague reputational worries about bad media reports. ‘“Last minute stays [of execution]
... represent an interference with the orderly processes of justice which should be
avoided in all but the most extraordinary of circumstances.”’ Reid v. Johnson, 333 F. Supp.
2d 543, 553 (E.D. Va. 2004) (quoting Stockton v. Angelone, 70 F.3d 12, 13 (4th Cir.1995)).
NRS 176.415 properly reflects that the public interest rests firmly on the side of denying
a stay in all but the most extreme scenarios. See id.
19

 The District Court could not exercise its equitable powers to grant a TRO that
collides with NRS 176.415. As this Court held in the prior writ petition involving
Dozier’s execution, courts must show restraint when invoking equitable powers “where
the legislature has enacted a statute or rule covering a certain area.” NDOC, 2018 WL
2272873, at *3 (citations omitted); see also Young v. Johnny Ribeiro Bldg., Inc., 106 Nev. 88,
92, 787 P.2d 777, 779 (1990) (discussing “inherent equitable powers”). This restraint is
even greater in the capital punishment context. See NDOC, 2018 WL 2272873, at *3.
NRS 176.415 covers the entire field of when a court may impose a stay of an execution
and the District Court’s TRO impermissibly conflicts with it. Accordingly, the TRO is
an inappropriate use of the District Court’s equitable authority and must be set aside.
To be sure, the District Court sought to distance its ruling from NRS Chapter
176. It denied that it was dealing with “an issue of a stay of an execution.” (App. 414).
This Court, however, examines the lower court order’s actual function and effect; the
Court does not limit itself to the labels that district courts attach to their orders.
Hospitality Int’l Grp. v. Gratitude Grp., LLC, 387 P.3d 208, 2016 WL 7105065, at *1 (Nev.
2016) (unpublished disposition) (holding that the Court had appellate jurisdiction
because an order was “functionally” a preliminary injunction even though district court
titled it a “temporary restraining order”); Taylor v. Barringer, 75 Nev. 409, 410, 344 P.2d
676, 676 (1959) (holding that order “is in effect a final judgment although entitled ‘an
order.’”).

20

 The focus is on what an order “substantively accomplishes” and what it ‘“actually
does, not what it is called.”’ Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 427, 996 P.2d 416, 418
(2000) (quoting Valley Bank of Nevada v. Ginsburg, 110 Nev. 440, 445, 874 P.2d 729, 733
(1994) and citing State, Taxicab Auth. v. Greenspun, 109 Nev. 1022, 1025, 862 P.2d 423,
425 (1993); Hallicrafters Co. v. Moore, 102 Nev. 526, 528-29, 728 P.2d 441, 443 (1986);
Bally’s Grand Hotel v. Reeves, 112 Nev. 1487, 1488, 929 P.2d 936, 937 (1996)).
Though styled as a TRO, the order’s real-world consequence was to stay Dozier’s
execution. The TRO enjoined the State “from using Alvogen’s product midazolam in
capital punishment.” (App. 430) (emphasis added). Alvogen likewise moved the District
Court to stop NDOC’s use of Midazolam.10 Alvogen claimed that “Defendants’
intended use” would cause it irreparable harm. (App. 180) (emphasis added). Alvogen
asserted that “the prohibited use of Alvogen’s product would also negatively impact
Alvogen’s business relationships …. In addition, the use of the Alvogen Midazolam
Product risks creating [an] erroneous misperception in the minds of the public ….” (Id.)
(emphases added); (App. 181) (“Defendants’ use of the Alvogen Midazolam Product
would interfere with the operation of its legitimate business”) (emphasis added).
Alvogen also argued that “[t]here was no urgency warranting the immediate and

10

See AA Primo Builders, LLC v. Washington, 126 Nev. 578, 584, 245 P.3d 1190, 1194
(2010) (holding that, “regardless of label,” courts will construe a motion to reconsider,
vacate, set aside or reargue a final judgment as a tolling motion if timely filed).

21

 wrongful use of the Alvogen Midazolam Product by July 11, 2018.” (App. 182)
(emphasis added).
Of course, the “use” to which the District Court and Alvogen were referring was
the “use” in Dozier’s execution. That was the only “use” at issue. And given the scarcity
of available drugs, and the prior Diazepam expiration, “using” Midazolam was the only
available means to carry out the execution. By enjoining NDOC’s “use” of Midazolam,
the District Court made it impossible to carry out the sentence.
NDOC cautioned the District Court that a TRO would stay the execution. (App.
372-73, 376) (“But, again, make no mistake. [Alvogen] wants to say this isn’t about
stopping an execution, this is just about one drug. If the court enters a preliminary
injunction enjoining the use of midazolam, there will be no execution tonight.”).
Alvogen understood that its requested relief would act as a stay. It simply proclaimed
that “Defendants can pursue their desire to execute Dozier later” with other drugs.
(App. 182) (emphasis added). A request to postpone an execution is the same as asking
for a stay. The District Court’s TRO improperly imposed a stay in fact, if not in name.
No other pharmaceutical manufacturer has ever obtained a TRO staying an
execution. A recent Arkansas case is the closest analogue. In McKesson Medical-Surgical,
Inc. v. Arkansas, Case No. 60CV-17-1960 (Ark. Cir. Ct. 2017), McKesson, a distributor
like Cardinal Health, filed two actions to prevent Arkansas from using Vecuronium

22

 Bromide in a series of upcoming executions.11 As with Alvogen, McKesson alleged that
Arkansas misled it by purchasing the drug without affirmatively alerting it that Arkansas
intended to use the drug in an execution. (App. 478, 457).
In the first action, the circuit court entered an ex parte TRO on April 14, 2017.
(App. 447). The Arkansas Supreme Court vacated the order on a writ of certiorari the
next judicial day. (App. 450).12 After the court reversed the first TRO, McKesson
dismissed its complaint but then re-filed a nearly identical pleading with another TRO
request. (App. 457). The second lower court initially denied the TRO but held a
preliminary injunction hearing and granted it. (App. 452).
Once more, Arkansas appealed to its supreme court. (App. 456). Arkansas
argued that the lower court lacked authority and jurisdiction to stay executions. (App.
461-62, 475). Arkansas asserted that “[t]he circuit court’s injunction is in reality a stay
of the executions [because] the ADC has no additional vecuronium bromide beyond
what it purchased from McKession, and the ADC has no other source from which to
purchase vecuronium bromide.” (App. 461). Arkansas explained that the executions

11

The State has included the briefs and opinions from this case in the Appendix
because they are unavailable on Westlaw. Alvogen cited and relied on this case in the
lower court. (App. 177, 338). However, Alvogen failed to disclose to the District Court
that the Arkansas Supreme Court summarily vacated the lower court rulings. (App. 411)
(conceding need to “supplement the record with regard” to the McKesson case).
12
The Arkansas Supreme Court subsequently determined that this particular lower
court judge was incurably prejudiced against capital punishment and barred him from
all death penalty cases. See In re Kemp, 894 F.3d 900 (8th Cir. 2018) (granting petition for
mandamus and finding that the judge failed to state any claim for relief against the
Arkansas Supreme Court for removing him from capital cases).
23

 could not go forward without using this drug. (Id.). Like the District Court’s TRO here,
Arkansas asserted the “circuit court’s order prohibits the ADC from using that
vecuronium bromide and therefore operates as a stay of executions as long as it remains
in effect.” (Id.).
McKesson echoed Alvogen and the District Court here. It countered that it did
not seek, and the circuit court did not grant, a stay of an execution. (App. 475). Rather,
McKesson claimed that it “filed suit to prevent the drugs that it supplied, and that ADC
obtained through misrepresentation and mistake, from being used by ADC. As a result,
the circuit court’s order precludes ADC only from using McKesson’s specific product.
The order does not enjoin ADC from using other drugs or means to conduct
executions.” (Id.). It was irrelevant, according to McKesson, that Arkansas did not have
other means to carry out the executions. (Id.). “That ADC may not have other drugs
available for its intended purposes … does not somehow transform an order not to
dispose of a particular product into a stay of executions.” (Id.). A few hours later, on
the same day as the second TRO, the Arkansas Supreme Court sided with the State and
granted Arkansas’s emergency motion for an immediate stay of the circuit court’s
injunction. (App. 490). Arkansas used the Vecuronium Bromide in four executions after
the Arkansas Supreme Court stayed the lower court’s injunction.
The same result should obtain here. The District Court’s TRO imposed a stay
on Dozier’s execution because it deprived the State of its only method of carrying out
the sentence. Both Alvogen and the District Court were aware of the TRO’s impact on
24

 the execution later that night. Alvogen cannot ignore the TRO’s ramifications by taking
a myopic view of its requested relief or the TRO’s effect. The TRO went far beyond
just requiring NDOC to preserve a drug; it stopped an execution.
The TRO therefore violated NRS 176.415, and this Court has jurisdiction and
the ability to dissolve it under NRS 176.492. See Workman v. Bredesen, 486 F.3d 896, 904
(6th Cir. 2007) (“[T]he practical effect of an injunction, which simultaneously operates to stay
Workman’s long-delayed execution and to give us authority to review it.”) (quotations
omitted; emphasis added); Boltz v. Jones, 182 F. App’x 824, 825 (10th Cir. 2006) (vacating
TRO that stayed execution in § 1983 action “challenging the pharmaceutical means by
which the execution will be accomplished.”).
B. This Court Should Also Exercise Its Original Jurisdiction.
In addition to its authority under NRS 176.492, this Court should exercise its
original jurisdiction. The Nevada Constitution empowers this Court to issue writs of
prohibition and mandamus. NEV CONST. art. VI, § 4. Writ relief is an extraordinary
remedy and the decision to entertain a writ petition ultimately lies within this Court’s
discretion. Cheung v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 121 Nev. 867, 869, 124 P.3d 550, 552 (2005).
When exercising its discretion, this Court considers whether the petition raises an
important issue of law that requires clarification, public policy interests, urgency, strong
necessity, judicial economy, and sound judicial administration. Clay v. Eighth Jud. Dist.
Ct., 129 Nev. Adv. Op. 48, 305 P.3d 898, 901 (2013).

25

 Each consideration weighs heavily in favor of entertaining this Petition. The
Petition presents important issues of law and first impression about a District Court’s
authority to stay an execution and whether drug manufacturers possess a private cause
of action to interfere with lawful capital sentences. This Court has already recognized
the public policy interests surrounding Nevada’s capital punishment regime generally
and Dozier’s execution in particular. See NDOC, 2018 WL 2272873, at *3 (“[W]e
recognize the importance of this matter, both to Dozier and to the citizens of the State
of Nevada”). The District Court’s ruling also has public policy implications that will
resonate outside Nevada into every other capital punishment jurisdiction. Politically
motivated drug manufacturers will now cite the District Court’s ruling in other states
to impede legislatively authorized, and duly imposed, capital sentences—just as Alvogen
tried to mislead the District Court with the Arkansas McKesson case. See supra note 11.
There is a strong urgency and necessity to expeditiously resolve the issues
presented. The District Court’s TRO stayed an execution that was only a few hours
away. The District Court did so after Dozier has spent more than a decade on death
row and after NDOC has spent almost a year embroiled in litigation, including prior
proceedings in this Court. More broadly, the District Court’s ruling effectively halts all
executions in Nevada, not just Dozier’s, because it leaves the State without the ability
to carry out any capital sentence. The United States Supreme Court has accepted “the
State’s legitimate interest in carrying out a sentence of death in a timely manner.” Baze v.
Rees, 553 U.S. 35, 61 (2008) (emphasis added). “Victims of crime also have an important
26

 interest in the timely enforcement of a sentence.” Ledford v. Comm’r, Georgia Dep’t of Corr., 856
F.3d 1312, 1319 (11th Cir. 2017), cert. denied sub nom. Ledford v. Dozier, 137 S. Ct. 2156
(2017) (quotations omitted; emphasis added). The TRO damages the State’s and
victims’ timeliness interests each day that it is erroneously in place. “Each delay, for its
span, is a commutation of a death sentence to one of imprisonment.” Thompson v.
Wainwright, 714 F.2d 1495, 1506 (11th Cir. 1983).
The State is also battling against the clock for another reason. As days pass, and
litigation drags on, all three drugs in NDOC’s lethal injection protocol get closer to
expiring. Denying this Petition may cause some, or all, of the drugs to expire before this
Court issues a definitive opinion—as happened with the Diazepam in the earlier writ
proceeding. Thus, even if the State prevails, the drug expirations may prevent it from
imposing the jury’s sentence—as happened with the earlier writ proceeding. If that
occurs again, death penalty opponents will have won this nationally important legal
issue by default. But for Jeremiah Miller’s family, “justice delayed will be justice denied.”
Guardians Ass’n v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of City of New York, 463 U.S. 582, 627 (1983)
(Marshall, J., dissenting).
Refusing this Petition will not serve judicial economy. The issues presented here
will not go away if delayed to another day. This Petition presents purely legal questions
about the District Court’s authority to stay an execution and whether Alvogen has a
cognizable cause of action. No factual development is needed to answer these statutory
interpretation questions. Judicial economy and administration will be enhanced by
27

 answering these questions before the State and parties engage in expensive, and
protracted litigation that will virtually guarantee the State’s drug supply expires. Simply
put, if the District Court lacks the power to enter a stay, or Alvogen has no cause of
action, then there is no need for discovery into Alvogen’s supposed reputational or
financial injuries (if any). The Court will save significant public and private resources by
entertaining this Petition.
This Court has entertained writ petitions arising from TROs when appropriate.
Cox v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 124 Nev. 918, 193 P.3d 530 (2008) (granting writ of
mandamus to vacate TRO); State ex rel. Hersh v. First Jud. Dist. Ct., 86 Nev. 73, 464 P.2d
783 (1970) (granting in part writ of prohibition declaring a TRO void); State ex rel.
Friedman v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 81 Nev. 131, 399 P.2d 632 (1965) (granting writ of
prohibition and certiorari declaring TRO void).13
And while writ relief is generally unavailable if the petitioner has a “plain, speedy,
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law[,]” NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330, a
motion to set aside or vacate a TRO, or even a direct appeal after a preliminary

13

Because of the parties’ discovery needs, the District Court extended the TRO
beyond the 15-day limit that NRCP 65(b) prescribes and, functionally, it could
constitute an appealable preliminary injunction. Hospitality Int’l Grp., 2016 WL 7105065,
at *1. Out of an abundance of caution, Petitioners have filed a protective notice of
appeal concurrently with this writ. If necessary, this Court should treat this Petition as
the State’s appellate brief. See Clark Cty. Liquor & Gaming Licensing Bd. v. Clark, 102 Nev.
654, 658, 730 P.2d 443, 446 (1986) (treating appeal as a writ of mandamus to avoid
unfairness).

28

 injunction, is not always a “speedy and adequate” remedy. See Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. Eighth
Jud. Dist. Ct., 61 Nev. 245, 123 P.2d 237, 240 (1942) (granting agency’s writ of
prohibition to vacate a TRO that prevented a government hearing). This is especially
so when the lower court’s TRO will prevent the State from carrying out its lawful
enforcement functions for “many months.” See id. “To withhold the writ under such
circumstances would not be exercising a proper discretion.” Id.14
1. A Writ of Mandamus Should Issue to Correct the District Court’s
Erroneous Interpretation and Application of Law.
A writ of mandamus “may be issued … to compel the performance of an act
which the law especially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station,”
NRS 34.160, “or to control a manifest abuse or arbitrary or capricious exercise of
discretion.” State v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 127 Nev. 927, 931, 267 P.3d 777, 779 (2011).15
“A manifest abuse of discretion is a clearly erroneous interpretation of the law or a

14

See also Ashokan v. State, Dep’t of Ins., 109 Nev. 662, 667, 856 P.2d 244, 247 (1993)
(“Nonetheless, despite the availability of an adequate legal remedy, this court has
decided to exercise its constitutional prerogative to entertain the writ.”); State ex rel.
Armstrong v. State Bd. of Exam’rs, 78 Nev. 495, 497-98, 376 P.2d 492, 493-94 (1962)
(holding that when the Court confronts a question of law, “the mere fact that other
relief may be available does not necessarily supersede the remedy of mandamus”).
15
Alternatively, the Court should issue a writ of prohibition. A writ of prohibition
is the counterpart to a writ of mandamus. NRS 34.320. It arrests the proceedings of a
lower court “when such proceedings are without or in excess of the [court’s] jurisdiction
….” Id. “A writ of prohibition serves to stop a [lower] court from carrying on its judicial
functions when it is acting outside its jurisdiction.” Stephens Media, LLC v. Eighth Jud.
Dist. Ct., 125 Nev. 849, 857, 221 P.3d 1240, 1246 (2009) (quotations omitted). This
Court should arrest the District Court from staying Dozier’s execution in violation of
NRS 176.415, as discussed above.
29

 clearly erroneous application of a law or rule.” Id. at 932, 267 P.3d at 780 (quotation
marks and alteration omitted). In the context of a writ, just as elsewhere, this Court
reviews questions of law de novo. Picardi v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 127 Nev. 106, 110, 251
P.3d 723, 725 (2011), abrogation on other grounds recognized by Tallman v. Eighth Jud.
Dist. Ct., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 71, 359 P.3d 113, 120 (2015).
At the TRO hearing, Alvogen explained that it was only focusing on NRS 41.700
for purposes of the temporary restraining order. (App. 353-54). Its other alleged NRS
Chapter 453 violations merely served as the “predicate” acts to establish a violation
under NRS 41.700. (App. 356, 368-69). Ultimately, the District Court held that Alvogen
“has a reasonable probability of establishing claims under replevin and NRS 41.700.”
(App. 415, 165-66 (citing Boulder Oaks Cmty. Ass’n v. B & J Andrews Enterprises, LLC,
125 Nev. 397, 403, 215 P.3d 27, 31 (2009) (stating the elements for preliminary
injunction))). But the District Court clearly erred on two legal grounds. First, the
District Court erred when it concluded Alvogen possessed a private cause of action
under NRS 41.700 and NRS Chapter 453, individually or collectively. Second, the
District Court erred when it found that Alvogen might replevy the drugs because it
retained a property interest in the Midazolam that NDOC purchased from Cardinal
Health.16

16

The District Court’s interpretation and application of NRS 176.415 is also clearly
erroneous as set forth above.
30

 2. NRS 41.700
NRS 41.700 creates civil liability for a “person” who “[k]nowingly and unlawfully
serves, sells or otherwise furnishes a controlled substance to another person” or
“[k]nowingly allows another person to use a controlled substance in an unlawful manner
on premises or in a conveyance belonging to the person allowing the use or over which
the person has control.” Damages are limited to those “caused as a result of the person using
the controlled substance.” Id. (emphasis added). “A person who prevails in an action … may
recover his or her actual damages ….” NRS 41.700(2).
The State, its departments, officials, and contractors are not “persons” who can
be liable under NRS 41.700. NRS 0.039 defines “person” as used in the Nevada Revised
Statutes as “a natural person, any form of business or social organization and any other
nongovernmental legal entity including, but not limited to, a corporation, partnership,
association, trust or unincorporated organization.” (emphasis added). It expressly states
that “[t]he term does not include a government, governmental agency or political
subdivision of a government.” NRS 0.039. It’s unsurprising that the Legislature would
not, and did not, make the State potentially liable for its own handling of controlled
substances in its sovereign capacity. The State therefore cannot be a defendant under
NRS 41.700 and cannot be liable.
Nor can Alvogen invoke NRS 41.700’s protection. Alvogen does not have
standing to invoke NRS 41.700 because it is not within the “zone of interests” that this
statute protects. “[A] statutory cause of action extends only to plaintiffs whose interests
31

 ‘fall within the zone of interests protected by the law invoked.”’ Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v.
Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377, 1388 (2014); see also Anse, Inc. v. Eighth Jud.
Dist. Ct., 124 Nev. 862, 867-69, 192 P.3d 738, 742-43 (2008). Courts must decide
whether this particular plaintiff falls within the class of entities that the Legislature has
given a right to sue under this substantive statute. Lexmark Int’l, Inc., 134 S. Ct. at 1387.
“In other words, we ask whether [the plaintiff] has a cause of action under the statute.”
Id.
To determine whether a plaintiff falls within the “zone of interests,” courts use
traditional tools of statutory interpretation. Id. at 1387-88. Courts do not consider
whether, in their judgment, the Legislature should permit the plaintiff’s suit; courts only
analyze whether the Legislature in fact did so. Id. at 1388. On its face, NRS 41.700 does
not describe the potential victims within the statute’s “zone of interest” that may
recover their “actual damages” “as a result of the person using the controlled
substance.” At the TRO hearing, the State argued that an examination of the purpose
and legislative history would show that a drug manufacturer is not “within the class of
persons the [L]egislature was concerned about when it enacted 41.700.” (App. 394).
Alvogen disputed that reading of the statute. (App. 403). Because Alvogen and the State
advanced two reasonable, but conflicting, interpretations, the statute is ambiguous and
the Court may look to legislative history as a guide. Coleman v. State, 134 Nev. Adv. Op.

32

 28, 416 P.3d 238, 240 (2018).
NRS 41.700 was introduced in the 2007 Legislature as Senate Bill 7.17 Senator
Valerie Wiener sponsored the bill and described it as “social hosting” legislation. Written
Testimony of Sen. Wiener on S.B. 7 (Feb. 8, 2007).18 Senator Wiener characterized the bill
as an effort to curb underage substance abuse. See generally id. According to Senator
Wiener, “this ‘social hosting’ legislation would ensure that adults who knowingly serve,
sell, or otherwise furnish alcohol to an underage drinker—or a controlled substance to
anyone—are civilly liable for any damages caused by the inebriated drinker or substance
abuser.” Id. (emphasis added).
John R. Johansen, a representative of the Department of Public Safety, also
understood the bill as “social hosting” legislation. Minutes of the Senate Committee on
Judiciary (Feb. 8, 2007).19 The Nevada Trial Lawyers Association’s President, Robert R.
Jensen, testified in support of the bill because “Dramshop liability is imposed on people
for furnishing alcohol or controlled substances.” Id. Mr. Jensen flatly stated that “this
bill targets parents or adults who know they are providing alcohol to teens and are aware
there is potential to harm.” Id. A Mothers Against Drunk Driving representative
supported the bill and complimented the “social host law as a deterrent to parents and

17

Available at https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/74th2007/Reports/history
.cfm?ID=15
18
Available at https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/74th2007/Minutes/Senate/
JUD/Final/91.pdf
19
Available at https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/74th2007/Minutes/Senate/
JUD/Final/91.pdf.
33

 other adults from providing alcohol to minors.” Id. The bill provides an avenue for
“[p]arents [to] receive money due to the social-hosting law …” Id.
Senator Wiener explained at a later hearing that “[t]his bill is used if an inebriated
behavior causes damage to person or property.” Assembly Committee on Judiciary (May 3,
2007).20 Assemblyman Horne shared Senator Wiener’s concern that parents would
allow children to consume substances at home “[b]ut if they leave and cause damage or
hurt somebody else, it is not unreasonable that the parent should be held liable. If they
allow that practice and allow their children’s friends to come over and drink as well,
then they should be liable for any actions resulting from that.” Id. Senator Wiener
distinguished licensed vendors from the bill’s targets. “The major distinction with this
bill was to address the social hosting component where someone is engaged with an
underage drinker.” Id. Her intent “was to address the social setting where we see an
epidemic of this happening. I wanted to address this piece of it because we have had
established Dram Shop law for quite a long time.” Id. The bill was “not aimed toward
the participation in the religious experience or celebration; it is the inebriated underage
drinker causing harm to person or property.” Id. The bill does not “capture anything
about what happens until there is damage.” Id. (emphasis added).
At the final hearing on the bill, Jennifer Chisel, a committee policy analyst,
described the bill’s purpose as a “social host bill which imposes civil liability for damages

20

Available at https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/74th2007/Minutes/Assembly
/JUD/Final/1167.pdf.
34

 that result if the host knowingly provides alcohol or drugs or allows the consumption
of alcohol or drugs by a minor on his premises.” Assembly Committee on Judiciary (May 16,
2007).21 Assemblyman Horne provided an example of the class of victims that the bill
was designed to protect: “Let us say the Smith family serves alcohol to minors. One of
the minors leaves the premises and gets in a car accident and John Doe is injured. John
Doe wants to sue the Smith family for serving alcohol to that minor.” Id.
Against this background, NRS 41.700’s purpose is apparent. The Legislature
enacted the statute to provide a remedy to anyone that a minor hurts after being
knowingly plied with alcohol or controlled substances in a social setting. The social
hosting problems that prompted NRS 41.700 are a far cry from Alvogen’s claims in this
lawsuit. Needless to say, the State is not acting as a “social host” and is not providing
controlled substances, in the form of lethal injections drugs, to minors who are then
going to somehow physically harm Alvogen. The Legislature was concerned about
Dramshop-type liability and providing a remedy for personal injury and property
damage. The Legislature was not creating a mechanism for drug manufacturers to
pursue reputational injury claims, and it is a perversion of NRS 41.700 to twist it as a
device for drug manufacturers to stay an execution. See S. Nev, Labor Mgmt. Cooperation
Comm. ex rel. Melendez v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., No. 65547, 2016 WL 383147, at **1-2 (Nev.

21

Available at https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/74th2007/Minutes/Assembly
/JUD/Final/1321.pdf

35

 Jan. 28, 2016) (unpublished disposition) (stating that statutory standing inquiry overlaps
with implied cause of action inquiry).22
3. NRS Chapter 453
Even though Alvogen has no cognizable cause of action under NRS 41.700, it
still invokes three provisions in NRS Chapter 453, the Uniform Controlled Substances
Act, as so-called “predicates:” NRS 453.331, NRS 453.381, and NRS 453.391. Each
provision provides a criminal penalty, not a private right of action. NRS 453.331(2) (“A
person who violates this section is guilty of a category C felony and shall be punished
as provided in NRS 193.130.”); NRS 453.421 (“A person who violates any provision of
NRS 453.371 to 453.391, inclusive, is guilty of a category C felony and shall be punished
as provided in NRS 193.130.”).
Alvogen acknowledges that these statutes do not expressly provide for private
rights of action so it argues, instead, that implied causes of action exist. (App. 169, 172,

22

The Court need not address the underlying merits of any NRS 41.700 violation.
For present purposes, it suffices to note that the State did not act “unlawfully.” See, e.g.,
NRS 453.377(6) (“A controlled substance may be dispensed by: A pharmacy in an
institution of the Department of Corrections to a person designated by the Director of
the Department of Corrections to administer a lethal injection to a person who has
been sentenced to death.”); NRS 454.213(1)(k) (“a drug or medicine referred to in NRS
454.181 to 454.371, inclusive, may be possessed and administered by: Any person
designated by the head of a correctional institution.”); NRS 454.215 (setting forth when
NDOC employees may dispense a dangerous drug); NRS 454.221(2)(f) (exempting
from dangerous drug criminal penalties “[a] pharmacy in a correctional institution to a
person designated by the Director of the Department of Corrections to administer a
lethal injection to a person who has been sentenced to death.”); see also NRS 454.201(1)
(defining “dangerous drug” as “[a]ny drug which has been approved by the Food and
Drug Administration for general distribution”); see infra note 23.
36

 174). But there is a strong presumption against creating a private cause of action when
the Legislature has not expressly provided one. Baldonado v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, 124
Nev. 951, 959 n.11, 194 P.3d 96, 101 n.11 (2008) (parenthetically explaining and quoting
Maldonado v. Dominguez, 137 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 1998)). This Court will only find an
implied cause of action on rare occasions. Id. (citing Provencher v. Town of Enfield, 936
A.2d 625, 630 (Conn. 2007) (“[I]t is a rare occasion that [the Connecticut Supreme
Court] will be persuaded that the legislature intended to create something as significant
as a private right of action but chose not to express such an intent in the statute.”)).
Whether an implied cause of action exists is a question of legislative intent. Id. at
958, 194 P.3d at 100-01. Without establishing legislative intent, ‘“a cause of action does
not exist and courts may not create one, no matter how desirable that might be as a
policy matter, or how compatible with the statute.”’ Id. at 959, 194 P.3d at 101 (quoting
Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 286-87(2001)). This Court examines three factors to
determine if there is an implied cause of action: “(1) whether the plaintiffs are ‘of the
class for whose special benefit the statute was enacted;’ (2) whether the legislative
history indicates any intention to create or to deny a private remedy; and (3) whether
implying such a remedy is ‘consistent with the underlying purposes of the legislative
[sch]eme.’” Id. at 958-59, 194 P.3d at 101 (footnotes and quotations omitted).
There is no suggestion, anywhere, that the Legislature meant these statutes to
specially benefit drug manufacturers. Alvogen points to no such evidence. In fact,
Alvogen concedes that it “is not aware of any legislative history that speaks” to any
37

 legislative intention to create a private remedy. (App. 170, 172, 274). Indeed, implying
a private remedy is inconsistent with the legislative scheme. The Legislature has
expressly authorized the Investigation Division of the Department of Public Safety to
enforce NRS Chapter 453. NRS 453.271. The Attorney General and district attorneys
are allowed to bring a civil enforcement action. NRS 453.553. Any civil action must be
brought in the name of the State of Nevada. Id. The statutes also permit the State Board
of Pharmacy and Attorney General to bring an action to enjoin a violation of NRS
Chapter 453. NRS 453.276. These actions too must be brought in the name of the State.
Id. Because the Legislature restricted the ability to obtain an injunction to the Board
and the Attorney General in the name of the State, Alvogen was not entitled to seek—
and the District Court could not grant—the TRO at issue. See Thomas, 130 Nev. Adv.
Op. 52, 327 P.3d at 521 (stating that legislative expression of one thing excludes
another).
NRS Chapter 453 clearly indicates a legislative intent for state actors to enforce
controlled substances laws, not private entities that manufacture controlled substances.
See Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 316
(2012) (stating that implied private actions “take responsibility for suit out of the hands
of public officials, who will presumably exercise their discretion in the public interest,

38

 and place it in the hands of those who would use it for private gain.”).23
Since NRS Chapter 453’s provisions contain no private cause of action, they
cannot serve as the predicate offenses for a violation of NRS 41.700, even if Alvogen
were within NRS 41.700’s “zone of interest.” See Almond Hill Sch. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric.,
768 F.2d 1030 (9th Cir. 1985) (holding that FIFRA’s lack of express or implied private
causes of action, and comprehensive enforcement scheme, precluded it from serving as
a predicate for a § 1983 action); Smith v. Oppenheimer Funds Distrib., Inc., 824 F. Supp. 2d
511, 521 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (“Plaintiff must assert a predicate violation of a substantive
provision of the ICA which itself has a private right of action.”); Dugar v. Coughlin, 613
F. Supp. 849, 852 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (“The other provisions of Title 18 do not secure
rights to plaintiff. He can neither sue directly under them, nor can he use them as a
predicate for a section 1983 action.”); Gassman v. Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook Cty., 71
N.E.3d 783, 790 (Ill. App. 2017) (“When a plaintiff seeks to use a statutory enactment

23

The District Court found that “[t]he plaintiff has a reasonable probability of
success of establishing the State knew its intended use of midazolam was not one
approved by the FDA.” (App. 414). This statement’s relevancy is unclear. A private
entity has no cause of action under the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act or the
federal Controlled Substances Act. Jones v. Hobbs, 745 F. Supp. 2d 886 (E.D. Ark. 2010),
aff’d sub nom. Williams v. Hobbs, 658 F.3d 842 (8th Cir. 2011) (holding that condemned
inmates had no private right of action under FDCA or CSA to challenge alleged use of
lethal injection drugs without FDA approval or a prescription. Congress vested the
Executive Branch with complete discretion to enforce those statutes); Durr v. Strickland,
602 F.3d 788, 789 (6th Cir. 2010) (holding that condemned inmate had no private right
of action under FDCA or CSA to challenge use of Midazolam “without a prescription
from a licensed medical practitioner and distributed without authorization”).

39

 as a predicate for a tort action seeking damages, he must demonstrate that a private
right of action is either expressly granted or implied in the statute.”).24
4. Replevin
Replevin is a common law cause of action to recover personal property or goods
wrongfully detained. Perkins v. Barnes, 3 Nev. 557, 559-60 (1867) (involving case where
original owner sued purchaser who bought property from an intermediary). This Court
has long held that “[u]nder our practice, the plaintiff makes out a case when he shows
property or right of possession in himself, and an unauthorized detention by the
defendant.” Id. at 559.
Alvogen asserts that it retained a property interest in the Midazolam sold through
Cardinal Health because Alvogen purportedly placed “controls” or use restrictions on
the drug that attached to the product and ran with it down the stream of commerce.
Alvogen alleges that “in light of its clear and unambiguous communications and
restrictions regarding the sale of its Midazolam Product, Alvogen is the rightful owner
of the Midazolam product and has a present and immediate right of possession to said
property.” (App. 91). Alvogen continues that it has a specific property interest in

24

As a factual matter, NDOC did not violate any of NRS Chapter 453’s provisions
but the Court need not reach this factual dispute because Alvogen lacks a viable cause
of action and the State cannot be liable under this Chapter. NRS 453.281(3) (“No
liability is imposed by the provisions of NRS 453.011 to 453.552, inclusive, upon any
authorized state, county or municipal officer engaged in the lawful performance of his
or her duties.”); see supra note 22. Similarly, the State is entitled to sovereign immunity
under NRS 41.031 and NRS 41.032, but the court also need not address this issue.
40

 NDOC’s drugs “because NDOC intends to use Alvogen’s property for administration
of capital punishment, in violation of Alvogen’s policies and agreements with Alvogen
and its distributor(s).” (Id.). According to Alvogen, an end-user does not “acquire title”
if it does not abide by the resale and use restrictions Alvogen placed on the
intermediary-distributor. (App. 91, 365-66). In this way, Alvogen treats its so-called
controls and use restrictions like real property servitudes or restrictive covenants that
give it an enforceable reversionary property interest.
But the common law does not permit servitudes or covenants on chattel,
personal property, or goods that are enforceable against downstream purchasers; the
common law has only tolerated use restrictions on real property, and even then with
some skepticism. “It is also a general rule of the common law that a contract restricting
the use or controlling subsales cannot be annexed to a chattel so as to follow the article
and obligate the subpurchaser by operation of notice. A covenant which may be valid and run
with land will not run with or attach itself to a mere chattel.” 25 John D. Park & Sons Co.
v. Hartman, 153 F. 24, 39 (6th Cir. 1907) (emphasis added; collecting cases) (holding that
drug wholesaler obtained “absolute title” to medicine despite its knowledge that
purchase breached restrictions that drug manufacturer imposed on intermediary-seller).
Use restrictions on third-party end-users infringe the right of alienation, and
“[t]he right of alienation is one of the essential incidents of a right of general property

25

This rule makes sense because, unlike real property, there is no comprehensive
recording system for personal property or goods.
41

 in movables, and restraints upon alienation have been generally regarded as obnoxious
to public policy, which is best subserved by great freedom of traffic in such things as
pass from hand to hand.” Id. at 39.
The United States Supreme Court recently highlighted that, “[a]s Lord Coke put
it in the 17th century, if an owner restricts the resale or use of an item after selling it,
that restriction ‘is voide, because ... it is against Trade and Traffique, and bargaining and
contracting betweene man and man.”” Impression Prod., Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc., 137 S.
Ct. 1523, 1526 (2017) (quoting 1 E. Coke, Institutes of the Laws of England § 360, p. 223
(1628)). Lord Coke gave a simple example: “[If] a man be possessed of ... a horse, or of
any other chattell ... and give or sell his whole interest ... therein upon condition that
the Donee or Vendee shall not alien[ate] the same, the [condition] is voi[d], because his
whole interest ... is out of him, so as he hath no possibilit[y] of a Reverter ….” Kirtsaeng
v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 568 U.S. 519, 538 (2013) (quotations omitted). The Supreme
Court has explained that “[w]ith these last few words, Coke emphasizes the importance
of leaving buyers of goods free to compete with each other when reselling or otherwise
disposing of those goods. American law too has generally thought that competition,
including freedom to resell, can work to the advantage of the consumer.” Id.
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts’s decision in Garst v. Hall & Lyon
Co., 61 N.E. 219 (Mass. 1901) is an apt illustration. There, the plaintiff manufactured a
proprietary medicine called “Phenyo-Caffein,” made from a secret formula. Id. “The
plaintiff [sold] all Phenyo-Caffein subject to the conditions of a contract in which each
42

 purchaser agrees that he will not sell nor allow any one in his employ to sell it for prices
less than those specified in the agreement for the different sizes of boxes, and promises
to pay the plaintiff an agreed sum as damages if he violates this contract.” Id.
The defendant, “with full knowledge of the conditions under which the medicine
is sold by the plaintiff,” acquired the medicine in large quantities and intended to resell
it in violation of those conditions. Id. The defendant did not have a contract or
agreement with the plaintiff. Id. Nor did the defendant buy the medicine from “the firm
of wholesalers who received it from the plaintiff, and who agreed to sell it subject to
the above conditions.” Id. Rather, the defendant “bought it of a person who bought
either from this firm or from a purchaser from this firm.” Id. The plaintiff sued to stop
defendant’s resale on terms that conflicted with the plaintiff’s contract with its
intermediary wholesalers. See id.
The court held that “[t]he purchaser from a purchaser has an absolute right to
dispose of the property. He may consume it, or sell it to another. The plaintiff has
contracts from his vendees in regard to the prices at which they will sell if they sell at
all. If they sell in violation of their contracts with the plaintiff, he has a remedy against
them to recover his damages. This right is founded on the personal contract alone, and
it can be enforced only against the contracting party.” Id. (internal citation omitted).
The court rejected the plaintiff’s contention that the resale condition attached to, and
ran with, the medicine. “To say that this contract is attached to the property, and follows
it through successive sales which severally pass title, is a very different proposition. We
43

 know of no authority, not of any sound principle, which will justify us in so holding.”
Id.26
Setting aside whether, at the time NDOC purchased the drugs, Alvogen had an
enforceable contract with Cardinal Health that restricted the sale of Midazolam (it
didn’t, but the Court need not address this factual issue), NDOC is in the same position
as the defendant in Garst. Alvogen’s hypothetical contractual condition would bind only
Cardinal Health, as Alvogen’s intermediate vendee or distributor. NDOC purchased
the drug from Cardinal Health, not Alvogen, and NDOC has no direct contract, or
contact, with Alvogen. Under the common law, Alvogen’s resale condition did not
create a reversionary property interest that attached to the medicine or otherwise follow
through to NDOC’s successive purchase from Cardinal Health.27 The resale condition
did not somehow cloud NDOC’s title to the drugs or retain a property interest in
Alvogen. See NRS 104.2403.
Alvogen’s letters and website disclaimer are irrelevant. Notice of a condition on

26

Since state common law cases upholding “personal property servitudes” are
exceedingly thin, at best, “[s]ecurity interests … are a much more common mechanism
for encumbering personal property. Moreover, as compared to personal property
servitudes, security interests have a more solid legal foundation because they are
authorized and governed by state statutory law (the UCC) rather than a few common
law decisions.” John F. Duffy & Richard Hynes, Statutory Domain and the Commercial Law
of Intellectual Property, 102 VA. L. REV. 1, 60 (2016). Alvogen has not, and could not, make
a claim that it possessed a security interest in the drugs under the UCC. See NRS
104.2401. Even if it could, abusing a security interest to interfere with Nevada’s
sovereign criminal justice and death penalty policies would undoubtedly be void as
against public policy.
27
Alvogen’s conversion claim fails for the same reasons.
44

 an intermediary bequeaths no personal property servitude. Hartman, 153 F. at 39; Garst,
61 N.E. at 219. Thus, NDOC was no more bound to Alvogen’s conditions than the
Garst defendant, and Alvogen cannot assert a reversionary interest in its goods. To the
extent Alvogen has any complaint, it is under its alleged contract with Cardinal Health.
The cases Alvogen relied on below are not to the contrary. (App. 176-77). In
Tempur-Pedic Int’l, Inc. v. Waste To Charity, Inc., No. 07 2015, 2007 WL 535041 (W.D. Ark.
Feb. 16, 2007), a mattress manufacturer received an ex parte TRO against a charitable
organization that was reselling donated mattresses in violation of a contract between
them. The TRO extended to apparent third-party agents that co-conspired with the
charitable organization in “a scheme to defraud Tempur-Pedic by selling
misappropriated mattresses for profit, below retail value and in contravention of the
general purpose of Tempur-Pedic’s donation of the goods.” Id. The third-parties do not
appear to be independent purchasers. For example, the opinion does not mention
whether the third parties purchased the mattresses from the charitable organization.
But the court noted that within a day of the manufacturer’s investigative inquiry to the
charitable organization, the third parties were no longer willing to resell the mattress.
Id. at *3. The court implied that the charitable organization warned the third parties that
the manufacturer was snooping. See id.
Additionally, the court emphasized that it was treating the charitable organization
as a thief who could not pass good title. The court cited an Arkansas case with the
parenthetical explanation that “[t]he general rule-as regards all personal property except
45

 money and negotiable paper-is, that a purchaser from a thief acquires no title against
the true owner, in the absence of limitations and estoppel.” Id. at *7 (quoting Eureka
Springs Sales Co. v. Ward, 290 S.W.2d 434, 436 (Ark. 1956)). By treating the charitable
organization as a thief, the manufacturer was not trying to enforce a use restriction or
servitude on a good like Alvogen is trying to do here. The mattress manufacturer was
simply recovering stolen property. This is an unremarkable proposition. See Alamo RentA-Car, Inc. v. Mendenhall, 113 Nev. 445, 452, 937 P.2d 69, 74 (1997) (“The owner of
stolen goods is not divested of title therein by the theft, and even though an innocent
subsequent purchaser may be treated as having title as against everyone but the rightful
owner, a sale by the thief ... does not vest title on the purchaser as against the owner....”).
Alvogen has not—and could not—make a claim that Cardinal Health is a thief unable
to transfer title to NDOC.28
Once again, Alvogen points to the Arkansas McKesson case in which the lower
court found that a drug distributor’s replevin claim against the State had a likelihood of
success on the merits. (App. 177, 338). Unlike Alvogen here, McKesson had a direct

28

For purposes of void and voidable title, there is a difference between a buyer
and a thief, and theft and breach of contract. State v. Mermis, 20 P.3d 1044, 1049 (Wash.
App. 2001). Cardinal Health did not obtain the drugs from Alvogen by “fraud” within
the UCC’s meaning and so did not obtain only “voidable” title. Id. at 748 n.28; NRS
104.2403(1)(d); Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc., 113 Nev. at 452 n.1, 937 P.2d at 73 n.1 (stating
buyer that obtained car through fraud had voidable title). Because Cardinal Health did
not simply have voidable title, NDOC’s status as a good faith purchaser for value, and
the District Court’s finding on this point, are irrelevant—even though NDOC did act
in good faith at all times. NRS 104.2403; (App. 415).
46

 relationship with the State and so, under the common law, had a more plausible ability
to enforce any use restrictions that may have existed between them. Still, the Arkansas
Supreme Court summarily vacated the TRO on the same day, thus showing that a
replevin claim does not even lie for a drug distributor with a direct connection to the
State.
Notwithstanding common law practice and history, the District Court held that
Alvogen has the “right to decide not to do business with someone, including the
government, especially if there’s a fear of misuse of their product.” (App. 414). Yet, in
Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U.S. 373 (1911),29 the United States
Supreme Court described the difference between choosing one’s customers and
imposing impermissible servitudes on goods later resold to third parties. Like Garst and
this case, Dr. Miles involved a medicinal manufacturer. Id. 374. The manufacturer sold
“its medicines to jobbers and wholesale druggists, who in turn sell to retail druggists for
sale to the consumer. [The manufacturer] fixed not only the price of its own sales to
jobbers and wholesale dealers, but also the wholesale and retail prices.” Id.
The defendant was a drug wholesaler who had formerly dealt with the
manufacturer and knew about the manufacturer’s sale conditions. Id. at 381. As with
Alvogen here, the manufacturer alleged that the defendant “had unlawfully and
fraudulently procured [the medicines] from the [manufacturer’s] ‘wholesale and retail

29

Overruled on other grounds by Leegin Creative Leather Prod., Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551
U.S. 877 (2007).
47

 agents’ by means ‘of false and fraudulent representations and statements, and by
surreptitious and dishonest methods, and by persuading and inducing, directly and
indirectly,’ a violation of their contracts.” Id. at 382. The defendant supposedly
concealed the source of its supply and sold the drugs at cut rates. Id. The manufacturer
sought an injunction and claimed damage to its business goodwill. Id. at 375-75, 382.
Before the Supreme Court, the drug manufacturer rested on the same argument
as the District Court below. The manufacturer urged that “as the manufacturer may
make and sell, or not, as he chooses, he may affix conditions as to the use of the article or as to
the prices at which purchasers may dispose of it. The propriety of the restraint is sought
to be derived from the liberty of the producer.” Id. at 404 (emphasis added). The
Supreme Court retorted, “[b]ut because a manufacturer is not bound to make or sell, it
does not follow in case of sales actually made he may impose upon purchasers every sort
of restriction. Thus, a general restraint upon alienation is ordinarily invalid.” Id. (emphasis
added). A manufacturer cannot impose use or price restrictions on third-party
purchasers even if “the restriction be known to purchasers.” Id. at 405.
The Supreme Court reasoned that servitude-esque restrictions on a product’s use
or resale are void as against public policy. Id. at 405-06. The public welfare is the first
consideration. Id. at 406. “The public have an interest in every person’s carrying on his
trade freely: so has the individual. All interference with individual liberty of action in
trading, and all restraints of trade of themselves, if there is nothing more, are contrary

48

 to public policy, and therefore void. That is the general rule.” Id. (quotations omitted).
The public policy interests are especially strong where, as here, the manufacturer
is seeking to impose a use restriction on a third-party State that would frustrate the most
sovereign of state interests—duly enacted laws and capital sentence jury verdicts. State
v. Lafferty, 20 P.3d 342, 373 (Utah 2001) (“[T]he death penalty is the most solemn and
final act that the state can take against an individual.”) (quotations omitted). Contrary
to Alvogen’s public relations and commercial preferences, the Nevada Legislature has
authorized capital punishment. Manufacturers, like Alvogen, may be free to refuse to
deal directly with the State. And manufacturers may impose use and price restrictions
on those entities with whom they deal directly. But it would be injurious to the public
interest if drug manufacturers, which do not deal directly with States, are allowed to
enforce use restrictions that are aimed at preventing capital sentences, against the will
of the People in that State. Manufacturers should be limited to asserting their rights (if
any) against their contractual distributors. Intermediary-distributors can decide for
themselves whether they want to assist States with the States’ statutory criminal justice
mandates, notwithstanding any agreements with manufacturers. The common law
allows intermediaries to freely pass title to drugs without any manufacturer use
conditions.
Recognizing a property interest, and related causes of action, so foreign to the
common law would effectively end capital punishment. Unless this Court emphatically
rejects Alvogen’s arguments as a legal matter, commercial interests associated with any
49

 product used in an execution, however remote, will be able to file a last second lawsuit
to delay an execution—no matter the method. From the rope weaver, armorer,
electrician, and chemist, to the pharmacist and everyone in between. But the decision
to abolish capital punishment should be left to the People and their Representatives. It
should not be done through the backdoor by inventing a cause of action at the behest
of commercial interests and, above all, to the detriment of the criminal justice system
and murder victims.30
IV. CONCLUSION AND RELIEF SOUGHT
For these reasons, Petitioners respectfully request that the Court dissolve the
District Court’s stay of Dozier’s execution or, alternatively, issue a writ of mandamus
or prohibition vacating the District Court’s temporary restraining order.
Dated: July 25, 2018.
/s/ Jordan T. Smith
Ann M. McDermott (Bar No. 8180)
Bureau Chief
Jordan T. Smith (Bar No. 12097)
Deputy Solicitor General
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
555 East Washington Avenue, Suite 3900
Las Vegas, NV 89101
(702) 486-3894
jsmith@ag.nv.gov
Counsel for Petitioners
30

See Baze, 553 U.S. at 61 (“Reasonable people of good faith disagree on the
morality and efficacy of capital punishment, and for many who oppose it, no method
of execution would ever be acceptable. But as Justice Frankfurter stressed in Resweber,
‘[o]ne must be on guard against finding in personal disapproval a reflection of more or
less prevailing condemnation.”’).
50

 VERIFICATION
I, Jordan T. Smith, declare as follows:
1.

I am currently employed in the Office of the Attorney General as the

deputy solicitor general. I am counsel for Petitioners named herein.
2.

I verify that I have read the foregoing Petition to Dissolve Stay of

Execution Under NRS 176.492 and Petition for Writ of Mandamus or Prohibition; and
that the same is true of my own knowledge, except for matters stated on information
and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true.
3.

I declare under the penalty of perjury of the laws of Nevada that the

foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on this 25th day of July 2018 in Las Vegas, Nevada.
/s/ Jordan T. Smith
Jordan T. Smith (Bar No. 12097)
Deputy Solicitor General

51

 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I hereby certify that this brief complies with the formatting requirements of
NRAP 32(a)(4), the typeface requirements of NRAP 32(a)(5) and the type style
requirements of NRAP 32(a)(6) because this brief has been prepared in a proportionally
spaced typeface using Office Word 2013 in size 14 font in double-spaced Garamond
and contains 13,448 words. I further certify that I have read this brief and that it
complies with NRAP 21.
Finally, I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge, information and belief,
it is not frivolous or interposed for any improper purpose. I further certify that this
brief complies with all applicable Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure, in particular
NRAP 28(e)(1), which requires that every assertion in this brief regarding matters in the
record to be supported by appropriate references to the record on appeal. I understand
that I may be subject to sanctions in the event that the accompanying brief is not in
conformity with the requirements of the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Dated: July 25, 2018.
/s/ Jordan T. Smith
Jordan T. Smith (Bar No. 12097)
Deputy Solicitor General

52

 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing PETITION TO
DISSOLVE STAY OF EXECUTION UNDER NRS 176.492 AND PETITION
FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION with the Clerk of the Court
for the Nevada Supreme Court by using the appellate CM/ECF system on July 25,
2018.
Participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by the
appellate CM/ECF system.
I further certify that a courtesy copy was emailed to counsel for Respondents
simultaneously with the filing of the foregoing.
A copy was also provided to the following:
James J. Pisanelli, Esq.
Todd Bice, Esq.
Debra Spinelli, Esq.
PISANELLI BICE, PLLC
400 South 7th Street, Suite 300
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Kenneth Schuler
Michael Faris
Alex Grabowski
LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP
330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800
Chicago, IL 60611
Angela Walker
LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP
555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20004-1304

53

 Hon. Elizabeth Gonzalez
Eighth Judicial District Court
Department 11
200 Lewis Avenue
Las Vegas, NV 89155
/s/ Barbara Fell
An employee of the
Office of the Attorney General

54