stating that “[a] preliminary injunction is appropriate [only] if the movant demonstrates all of these elements: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that the preliminary injunction is necessary to prevent irreparable injury; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs the harm the preliminary injunction would cause the other litigant; and (4) that the preliminary injunction would not be averse to the public interest”
How later courts described this case
- stating that “[a] preliminary injunction is appropriate [only] if the movant demonstrates all of these elements: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that the preliminary injunction is necessary to prevent irreparable injury; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs the harm the preliminary injunction would cause the other litigant; and (4) that the preliminary injunction would not be averse to the public interest”
- affirming the dismissal of Eighth Amendment challenge to Florida’s nearly identical lethal injection protocol that uses 500 mg of midazolam as the first drug
- rejecting a method-of-execution claim in part because the prisoner admitted that the relevant lethal injection drug alternatives were unavailable
- discussing the scarcity of lethal injection drugs
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WILSON, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I agree that the district court properly found that Chavez failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his claims and is thus not entitled to a stay of his execution. Therefore, I concur in the majority opinion. I write separately to underscore that the question of whether a significant change has occurred to a state’s lethal injection protocol is a fact-intensive inquiry for which an evidentiary hearing is especially important. The district judge in this case properly conducted an evidentiary hearing and thoroughly studied the parties’ filings and exhibits and the governing legal principles. Indeed, while the district court concluded that expert anesthesiologist Dr. Lubar-sky’s testimony was ultimately speculative and insufficient to meet Chavez’s burden, nothing prevents a future inmate from presenting an anesthesiologist or expert to *1276 assert an opinion based on more conclusive and methodologically sound results. Further, in the event of a botched execution in this or a future case, such evidence may be relevant in a subsequent Eighth Amendment challenge to Florida’s execution practices.