Alabama’s lethal-injection cocktail will cause him to suffer a painful heart attack; and (3) he could suffer a “paradoxical reaction to midazolam.” Ar thur has established a sufficient likelihood that an Eighth Amendment claim will arise during his execution. Second, Alabama’s refusal to afford Arthur access to a telephone will impede his pursuit of that Eighth Amendment claim. The refusal is an “imminent official interference” with Arthur’s right of access to the courts. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 349, 116 S.Ct. at 2179. Arthur will have no access to the courts—much less meaningful access— if Alabama bars “telephonic access to the courts,” then straps him to a gurney and begins to subject him to a cruel and unusual execution process. See McGehee, slip op. at 58-59, 2017 WL 1381663 (<HOLDING>). Alabama’s refusal to afford Arthur access to
holding that a group of death row prisoners who asserted that arkansas failed to guarantee reasonable telephonic access to the courts during their executions sufficiently alleged an accessto courts claim recognizing right of prisoners to seek relief under 42 usc  1983 for denial of access to the courts holding that  1915g does not violate a prisoners right to access the courts separation of powers due process or equal protection holding that the prison physician lacked standing to raise the prisoners rights of access to the courts holding that prisoners have a constitutional right to meaningful access to courts and examining the facility as a whole to determine whether such access was sufficient