Powell v. Thomas, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 10270

Jason Williams, on Alabama death row, faced imminent execution scheduled for May 19, 2011.
ADOC replaced sodium thiopental with pentobarbital in its lethal injection protocol due to nationwide shortages.
Williams sought a stay in the Alabama Supreme Court and then in federal court, arguing the change violated the Eighth Amendment.
The district court denied the stay; Williams appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, arguing ongoing execution under the amended protocol posed substantial risk of harm.
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard and ultimately affirmed the district court’s denial.
Key precedents discussed include Eighth Amendment standards for risk of harm, and cases addressing execution protocol transparency and changes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Williams shows substantial likelihood of success on the merits	Williams argues pentobarbital risks serious harm.	State contends evidence shows only a de minimis risk and protocol change is not substantial.	No substantial likelihood of success; district court did not abuse discretion.
Whether Williams has a broad right to details of his execution under the Eighth Amendment	Williams seeks greater disclosure to reduce anxiety and oversight concerns.	No categorical right to detailed execution procedures; protocol adequately disclosed.	No violation found; no broad right established under cited authorities.
Whether the protocol change constitutes a significant alteration of the lethal injection procedure	Pentobarbital substitution represents a meaningful change potentially implicating Eighth Amendment concerns.	Change is not significant; informed process followed; not a constitutional violation.	Not a significant alteration; does not violate the Eighth Amendment.
Whether the district court properly denied the stay under the abuse-of-discretion standard	Stay warranted due to potential harm from protocol change.	District court correctly weighed factors and denied stay.	No abuse of discretion; stay denied.

Pavatt v. Jones, 627 F.3d 1336 (10th Cir. 2010) (courts rejected expert in similar pentobarbital challenges)
Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1993) (Eighth Amendment protects against future harm to inmates)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994) (deliberate indifference and substantial risk framework)
Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (U.S. 2008) (substantial risk of serious harm requires objective and subjective considerations)
Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637 (U.S. 2004) (limited relevance to execution details and procedural rights)
In re Holladay, 331 F.3d 1169 (11th Cir. 2003) (proper factors for stay of execution; abuse-of-discretion standard)