Darryl Barwick v. Governor of Florida, 66 F.4th 896

Darryl Barwick, a Florida death-row inmate, sought a stay of execution set for May 3, 2023, and sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming Florida’s clemency process violated his Fourteenth Amendment due-process rights.
Florida law vests broad, discretionary clemency power in the Governor and Cabinet (Clemency Board); the Commission on Offender Review may investigate and report but state rules supply no substantive clemency standards.
Barwick had a clemency interview on April 29, 2021; he presented mitigating evidence (childhood abuse, alleged brain injuries) and the Commissioners questioned him about both his background and the crime.
Governor DeSantis denied clemency and issued a death warrant on April 3, 2023; Barwick filed for an emergency stay and district court denied relief.
The Eleventh Circuit considered (1) whether § 1983 was a proper vehicle for a procedural challenge to clemency and (2) whether Florida’s clemency process (as applied to Barwick) violated minimal due-process protections.
The panel held federal jurisdiction under § 1983 was proper but concluded Barwick failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; the court denied a stay of execution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper vehicle for claim	Barwick: § 1983 can remedy procedural defects in clemency without attacking sentence	State: such claims belong in habeas / Spivey controls	Held: § 1983 is proper (Wilkinson/Nance controlling); Spivey abrogated
Whether clemency process violated due process by lacking standards	Barwick: absence of governing standards and misleading Commission conduct made process arbitrary	State: clemency is discretionary; only minimal procedural safeguards required; Commission provided process	Held: No due-process violation; Constitution does not require substantive clemency standards
Whether record shows arbitrary denial / inadequate consideration	Barwick: Commission focused on crime, ignored individualized mitigating evidence	State: Barwick had interview, was asked about mitigation; Board considered his case on the merits	Held: Record shows consideration of mitigating factors; not arbitrary
Stay factors / likelihood of success on merits	Barwick: likely to succeed on procedural-due-process claim, so stay warranted	State: last-minute stays disfavored; merits weak	Held: Barwick failed to show substantial likelihood of success; stay denied

Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005) (§ 1983 available for procedural claims that would not necessarily imply immediate release)
Nance v. Ward, 142 S. Ct. 2214 (2022) (distinguishing § 1983 from habeas by asking whether relief would necessarily prevent execution)
Ohio Adult Parole Auth. v. Woodard, 523 U.S. 272 (1998) (O'Connor concurrence: death-row inmates have a protected interest and only minimal procedural safeguards apply to clemency)
Cavazos v. Smith, 565 U.S. 1 (2011) (courts should not set substantive standards for executive clemency)
Bowles v. DeSantis, 934 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 2019) (describing Florida clemency regime and standard for stays)
Valle v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 654 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2011) (clemency procedure challenges cognizable under § 1983)
Gissendaner v. Comm'r, Ga. Dep't of Corr., 794 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 2015) (minimal due-process protections; state-law noncompliance not necessarily a federal violation)
Mann v. Palmer, 713 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2013) (no requirement for additional procedures when Governor considers updated investigation before signing death warrant)
Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573 (2006) (stay-of-execution standards require showing significant possibility of success on merits)