A federal judge who denied a motion by death row inmate James Edward Barber to block his execution by lethal injection wrote in her order that changes Alabama made after a review of executions played a part in her decision.

U.S. Chief District Judge Emily C. Marks of the Middle District of Alabama issued an order Friday denying Barber’s request for a preliminary injunction to stop his execution, scheduled to take place during the 30-hour period that starts July 20.

Barber was sentenced to death in 2004 for the murder of Dorothy Epps in 2001. Barber beat the 75-year-old woman to death with his fists and a claw hammer in her home in Madison County.

Barber asked the court to block Alabama from executing him except by nitrogen hypoxia, a method the Legislature authorized in 2018 but one that has never been used in any state. The state told the court it is not ready to use nitrogen hypoxia.

Barber’s lawsuit cites problems with Alabama’s last three scheduled lethal injections, calling them “botched,” to show that he would be subject to excessive, painful needle punctures that would violate the 8th Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

The execution team took three hours to establish an IV for Joe Nathan James Jr., who was put to death in July 2022. The executions of Alan Eugene Miller in September and Kenneth Eugene Smith in November were called off after the execution team was unable to establish the IV connections.

But Marks, who held a hearing in the case Wednesday, ruled Friday that Barber had not shown he was likely to succeed on his claim that lethal injection would be cruel and unusual punishment. In her 23-page opinion and order, the judge cited changes Alabama has made in the procedure.

After the failed execution of Smith, Gov. Kay Ivey called for a pause in executions to allow a “top to bottom” review of the process. In February, Alabama Department of Corrections Commissioner John Hamm informed Ivey that the review was complete, clearing the way for executions to resume. Barber’s execution is the first one scheduled since the review.

The governor’s office has released little information about the review and received criticism because it was done in-house by the ADOC, rather than an independent review.

Still, Marks said the review led to several meaningful changes, according to what the ADOC has told the court.

First, the ADOC replaced the members of the IV team who worked on previous executions. New members of the IV team were recruited from a larger pool of candidates, the ADOC said, and Holman Correctional Facility Warden Terry Raybon interviewed the team members and determined they had current licenses and certifications and extensive experience setting IV lines.

Also, the Alabama Supreme Court changed its execution warrants to allow the governor to schedule an execution in a time frame rather than on a single date. Under the previous rules, executions scheduled at 6 p.m. had to be carried out by midnight, a six-hour window often shortened by court appeals.

For example, the Supreme Court ruling that allowed the Miller execution to proceed came at 9 p.m. For Smith’s execution, the Supreme Court ruling came at 10:20 p.m.

Under Alabama’s new procedure, the governor can set a time frame for the execution, rather than confining it to a single day. Barber’s execution is scheduled to take place during the 30-hour period that begins at 12 a.m. on July 20.

Richard Anderson, an attorney for the state, told Marks that the state still plans to begin executions at 6 p.m. But with the new 30-hour window, the execution warrant will not expire at midnight, but at 6 a.m., the next day, allowing six more hours.

“The extended time permits the medical personnel to set the IV without the time pressure caused by legal challenges on the execution date,” Marks wrote.

The judge wrote that the several changes made by the state undermined Barber’s claim that the pattern from the last three scheduled executions showed that lethal injection would put him through cruel and unusual punishment.

“There is evidence before the Court that changes were made to the lethal injection procedures as a result of the investigation, namely, a longer time frame for the execution set by the Governor and a new IV Team consisting of individuals who did not participate in any prior execution or execution attempt,” Marks wrote. “These intervening actions cut off the emerging pattern of past practices that could have elevated Barber’s claims from purely speculative to actionable. In light of the investigation conducted by the ADOC, and actions taken as a result thereof, the Court finds Barber’s allegations are too speculative to give rise to an Eighth Amendment claim upon which he is substantially likely to prevail.”

Marks also wrote that the U.S. 11th Circuit has ruled that repeated needle punctures made in an effort to set an IV line are not cruel and unusual punishment, a ruling that came in a case filed by a Georgia death row inmate.

Marks quoted a Supreme Court decision: “The Constitution allows capital punishment” and “does not guarantee a prisoner a painless death—something that, of course, isn’t guaranteed to many people, including most victims of capital crimes.”