Pavatt v. Jones, 627 F.3d 1336

Matthews, a death-row inmate, faced imminent execution in Oklahoma with a revised lethal-injection protocol replacing sodium thiopental with pentobarbital.
The district court held an evidentiary hearing on Matthews' motion for a preliminary injunction challenging the revised protocol.
The district court found that the pentobarbital dose and protocol would render the inmate unconscious and likely lethal, and concluded no substantial risk of Eighth Amendment violation.
Matthews intervened and sought discovery and expert testimony; the district court denied the injunction and memorialized its ruling.
Oklahoma sought to set Matthews' execution date; Matthews appealed the denial of the injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
The court of appeals affirmed, applying Baze v. Rees standards to review the risk of harm and the sufficiency of the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion denying a stay.	Matthews argues substantial risk of severe pain and Eighth Amendment violation.	State shows no substantial risk beyond intentional death and adheres to protocol.	No abuse of discretion; Matthews failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.
Whether pentobarbital use violates state ultrashort-acting barbiturate requirement.	State-law interest creates a due process entitlement to the exact protocol.	No due process violation absent denial of challenge to protocol.	No substantial likelihood of prevailing on due process challenge; no denial of opportunity to challenge protocol.
Whether Matthews has a state-created life interest under state law triggering due process protections.	Matthews has a protected interest in execution per state law.	No deprivation without due process since Matthews could challenge protocol in state courts.	No substantial due process violation; record shows opportunity to challenge protocol in state proceedings.

Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573 (2006) (stay standards for execution challenges; equity and risk required for relief)
Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008) (risk of harm must be substantial and imminent to qualify as cruel and unusual)
Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (1992) (state-law interests must rise to entitlement to invoke due process protections)
Bd. of Regents of State Colls. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (due process protects legitimate entitlements created by state law)
Dist. Attorney's Office for Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, 129 S. Ct. 2308 (2009) (due process limitations on depriving protected life, liberty, or property interests)