Kelly Renee Gissendaner v. Commissioner, Georgia Department of Corrections
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12810
| 11th Cir. | 2015Background
- Kelly Gissendaner, a Georgia death-row inmate, prepared a clemency application and gathered supporting statements from prison staff before a scheduled 2015 execution.
- Arrendale warden Kathleen Kennedy issued a January 2015 memo directing staff to refer inquiries to Public Affairs and warning against discussing the matter outside the institution.
- After the memo, multiple staff who had agreed to provide statements or testimony withdrew or refused, citing fear for their jobs; four previously-submitted statements remained available.
- Gissendaner submitted her clemency application; the Board held a hearing, considered witnesses and the existing written statements, and denied clemency the next day.
- Gissendaner filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit alleging the warden’s memo violated her Fourteenth Amendment due process rights by interfering with her ability to present evidence to the clemency board; the district court dismissed the complaint and denied injunctive relief.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal, holding that the Due Process Clause provides only minimal procedural protection for clemency and that Gissendaner failed to state a federal due process claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a prison official’s memo that discouraged staff from aiding a clemency applicant violated the Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process right in clemency proceedings | Gissendaner: memo prevented obtaining "pertinent information" and thus deprived her of the process Georgia’s clemency statute contemplates | State: due process interest in clemency is very limited; Woodard permits minimal process and does not convert state-procedure violations into federal claims | Court: Dismissed—no federal due process violation; the minimal protections recognized in Woodard were satisfied and Wellons controls |
| Whether noncompliance with state clemency procedures (or an internal memo) gives rise to a federal due process claim | Gissendaner: the Due Process Clause requires the state process to be respected; failure to bring "pertinent information" violated §42-9-43 and federal due process | State: violations of state law or policy do not automatically create federal due process rights; Woodard and Supreme Court precedent reject transforming state-law violations into federal claims | Court: Held that alleged state-law/procedural violations alone do not establish a federal due process claim; federal courts intervene only in extreme denials of access |
| Whether preliminary injunctive relief / stay was warranted | Gissendaner: imminent execution and alleged interference justified injunctive relief and stay | State: insufficient likelihood of success on the merits; process was adequate | Court: Motions denied (and appeal of stay mooted by dismissal of the complaint) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ohio Adult Parole Auth. v. Woodard, 523 U.S. 272 (1998) (O’Connor, J., concurring) (recognizes a minimal due process interest for clemency but limits relief to extreme denials of access)
- Wellons v. Comm’r, Ga. Dep’t of Corr., 754 F.3d 1268 (11th Cir. 2014) (applies Woodard and holds clemency due-process interest is very limited; binding in Eleventh Circuit)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (violation of state prison regulations does not itself create a federal due process claim)
- Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238 (1983) (creation of state administrative procedures does not itself create a substantive federal right)
- Young v. Hayes, 218 F.3d 850 (8th Cir. 2000) (contrasting view: interference with state-created clemency process can violate due process)