Thomas Eugene Creech, a death row inmate in the custody of the Idaho Department of Correction, sought a preliminary injunction to halt his scheduled execution by lethal injection. The underlying dispute involved constitutional challenges to the state's execution protocol and the provenance of the pentobarbital drug to be used. Creech argued that the state failed to provide sufficient information about the drug's source and challenged the adequacy of the medical monitoring and administration procedures. The district court had previously denied the motion, finding that Creech was unlikely to succeed on the merits of his claims and that the balance of equities favored the state's interest in the finality of its judgments. Creech appealed this denial to the Ninth Circuit.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, applying an abuse of discretion standard to the denial of the preliminary injunction. The court addressed two primary Due Process claims and one Eighth Amendment claim. First, regarding the drug source, the court agreed with the district court that the state had adequately disclosed the planned method of execution. The state provided a Certificate of Analysis verifying the pentobarbital complied with regulatory standards. The court rejected Creech's arguments about the drug's provenance as purely speculative, noting they were based on unauthenticated exhibits and expert conjecture rather than evidence. Second, the court confirmed that Standard Operating Procedure 135.02.01.001 is the applicable protocol and that the state is following it. Third, regarding the Eighth Amendment, the court applied the standard from Glossip v. Gross and Bucklew v. Precythe. The court held that Creech's claim failed because he refused to identify an alternative method of execution. Furthermore, the court noted that Creech acknowledged he has no known conditions that would create a substantial risk of severe pain. The court also found that Supreme Court precedent forecloses the requirement for an anesthesiologist to administer the drug or for a brain monitor to be used. Finally, the court found no error in the district court's conclusion that the medical team's ability to observe the execution via real-time video feed was adequate. The court concluded that Creech failed to make a clear showing of a likelihood of success on the merits, and the balance of equities and public interest weighed against granting the injunction.
The denial of the preliminary injunction stands, allowing the state to proceed with the scheduled execution using its established protocol. The decision reinforces the high bar for death row inmates challenging execution methods, specifically requiring the identification of a feasible alternative method to succeed on an Eighth Amendment claim. It also clarifies that speculative arguments regarding drug provenance without concrete evidence are insufficient to halt an execution under Due Process claims. The ruling leaves open the question of whether Creech can raise new factual allegations in future proceedings, but as of this decision, the state's protocol remains in effect.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download