1. Whether the denial of the motion for preliminary injunction was improper where the State of Texas impeded a condemned prisoner from succeeding on an Eighth Amendment challenge to the State's use of an execution drug from a specific source, known to have safety violations, by refusing to provide the prisoner with readily available information the prisoner needed to prove his claim.

2. Where the petitioner does not challenge the method of execution or any part of the execution procedure used by the State, but rather seeks to prevent the use of an execution drug from one, specific supplier known to have a litany of safety violations, must the petitioner plead "a known and available alternative method of execution," pursuant to Glossip v. Gross, 135 S. Ct. 2726, 2731 (2015)?

Whether the State of Texas impeded a condemned prisoner from succeeding on an Eighth Amendment challenge by refusing to provide readily available information needed to prove the claim