Creech v. Bennetts, 94 F.4th 851

Thomas Eugene Creech, already serving life for multiple murders, killed inmate David Dale Jensen in 1981 and later received a death sentence for this offense.
In 2023, Idaho granted Creech a commutation hearing; the Idaho Commission of Pardons and Parole ultimately denied his petition in a split 3-3 vote (with one commissioner recused).
Creech filed a § 1983 lawsuit, alleging due process violations in the commutation proceedings and seeking a preliminary injunction to delay his scheduled execution.
The district court denied his preliminary injunction motion, and Creech appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
The appellate review focused on whether Creech was likely to succeed on the merits—especially if Idaho’s process met the minimal due process standards required in clemency and commutation hearings.

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Adequacy of notice and evidence disclosure for commutation hearing	Creech claims he was not given enough notice of evidence or issues to be presented.	Defendants argue sufficient notice and access were provided, meeting minimal due process.	Court held Creech received all process required by law and precedent.
Failure to appoint replacement commissioner after recusal	Creech claims absence of replacement commissioner deprived him of fair process.	Defendants note no such requirement in Idaho law and outcome wasn’t arbitrary.	Court held Idaho law did not require replacement; process was not arbitrary.
Introduction of misleading/fabricated evidence by prosecutor	Creech argues prosecution misrepresented facts, violating due process.	Defendants argue statements were not substantially false; Commission not misled.	Court found no due process violation and any purported issue was harmless.
Commission declining to pause proceedings post-hearing	Creech asserts refusal to delay was denial of fair process.	Defendants say Commission considered and denied the request as within its discretion.	Court held Commission had no obligation to grant deferral; no rights violated.

Ohio Adult Parole Auth. v. Woodard, 523 U.S. 272 (U.S. 1998) (commutation or clemency procedures require only minimal procedural safeguards)
Burnsworth v. Gunderson, 179 F.3d 771 (9th Cir. 1999) (no liberty interest in clemency proceedings; executive’s discretion governs)
Wilson v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of Cal., 161 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. 1998) (scope of due process in state clemency proceedings is limited)
Anderson v. Davis, 279 F.3d 674 (9th Cir. 2002) (recognizing some gross misconduct may support a due process claim in clemency)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (harmlessness standard for constitutional errors)