Is a narrowly tailored Eighth Amendment claim based on a State's documented, repeated maladministration of its chosen method of execution subject to the same pleading requirements as a challenge to the constitutionality of the method of execution itself?

Florida plans to execute Ronald Heath on February 10, 2026. It is Florida’s twentieth execution in the last 12 months —shattering all previous records for the State. Shortly before Heath’s death warrant was signed, internal Florida Department of Corrections (“FDOC”) records were published showing that, over the course of this unprecedented succession of executions, FDOC officials have on numerous occasions carried out lethal injection executions using expired drugs, incorrect dosages of drugs, and drugs not called for in the State’s protocol. The records also reflect mishandling of drugs and other deviations calling into question FDOC’s ability to properly maintain and transport lethal chemicals . And, during at least one recent execution, the inmate labored for 20 minutes before dying, manifesting outward signs of distress despite Florida’s use of a paralytic drug, which generally masks such signs. Heath proffered these records, as well as a medical expert’s opinion that the specific protocol deviations reflected in the FDOC records place Heath, the next inmate Florida intends to execute, at substantial risk of severe pain. Heath claimed below that Florida’s documented, repeated maladministration of its lethal injection protocol places him at imminent risk of harm in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The Florida Supreme Court, t reating Heath’s standalone maladministration claim as a traditional metho d-of-execution challenge, summarily denied relief, holding that Heath’s claim failed under the traditional requirements of Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008), and Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. 863 (2015), did not warrant discovery , and was ii based purely on speculation and conjecture —notwithstanding the undisputed FDOC records and medical opinion that Heath proffered. The questions presented are: 1. Is a narrowly tailored Eighth Amendment claim based on a State’s documented, repeated maladministration of its chosen method of execution subject to the same pleading requirements as a challenge to the constitutionality of the method of execution itself? 2. Does a petitioner sufficiently allege a substantial risk of severe harm for a standalone Eighth Amendment maladministration claim by proffering (1) undisputed records showing a State’s pattern of significant deviations from its the execution protocol, such as th e repeated use of expired and inaccurately dosed lethal injection drugs, and (2) a medical expert’s opinion that such deviations if repeated will likely result in severe pain to the petitioner? 3. May the proposed alternative in an Eighth Amendment maladministration case include review and safeguards to ensure future adherence to the protocol, rather than an entirely new method of execution? iii LIST OF DIRECTLY