F.Supp.2d 634 (E.D.Va.2007) (Hudson, J.); Walker v. Johnson, 448 F.Supp.2d 719 (E.D.Va.2006) (Hilton, J.). These decisions also influence the third factor, because they damage plaintiffs ability to “show[ ] a significant possibility of success on the merits.” Hill, 547 U.S. at 584, 126 S.Ct. 2096. Moreover, the pleadings filed by plaintiff provide minimal support for his assertions that the DOC’s protocol is not substantially similar to Kentucky’s procedure or that his execution will be carried out in a cruel and unusual fashion. Nor does the fact that the same or similar issues are pending before the Fourth Circuit increase the likelihood of irreparable harm, or likelihood of success, in the matter pending before this Court. See Jones v. Allen, 485 F.3d 635, 641 n. 4 (11th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Finally, the Court must consider the
recognizing in dicta that the case before it involving an individual and not an entity did not involve a recent change of domicile by the party in question and a similar case brought immediately after the partys arrival in the united states following a long period of domicile in the country where the bankruptcy is pending would likely lead to a different result holding that in the context of a challenge to a states lethal injection protocol the mere possibility of a trial date in another case involving similar issues does not affect the balancing of the equities in this case holding resentencing does not affect the date on which the judgment  of conviction became final holding that the same hearing officer as in this case erred in substituting his judgment for that of the pertinent school board in that case holding that in a case involving misrepresentations in violation of securities and exchange commission rule 10b5 under the circumstances of this case involving primarily a failure to disclose positive proof of reliance is not a prerequisite to recovery