must fail. First, the proof does not preponderate against the trial court’s conclusion that the Plaintiffs “did not carry their burden to establish [that] Tennessee’s protocol using compounded pentobarbital imposed a substantial risk of serious harm and qualifies as cruel and unusual.” The Plaintiffs’ proof on this point consisted of experts opining on the pain that an inmate would feel if the LIC infiltrated into the tissue surrounding the inmate’s vein. Such an event could occur if the LIC had precipitated or if the IV line were not successfully placed or maintained or if the LIC were injected too quickly. We hold that these mere possibilities are not sufficient to satisfy the Plaintiffs’ burden to establish a substantial risk of severe pain. See Baze, 553 U.S. at 62, 128 S.Ct. 1520 (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also,
holding that a defendant was estopped from asserting improper service where the defendants conduct caused the allegedly improper service recognizing those actions for monetary relief that we have characterized as equitable such as actions for disgorgement of improper profits holding that a defendant bears the burden of objecting to an allegedly improper closing argument at the time the improper argument is made holding that because the jury instructions were not improper the failure of petitioners trial counsel to object or request an additional instruction was not objectively unreasonable holding that the risks of maladministration that the petitioners have suggestedsuch as improper mixing of chemicals and improper setting of ivs by trained and experienced personnelcannot remotely be characterized as objectively intolerable