Ledell Lee v. Asa Hutchinson
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6953
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Arkansas scheduled eight executions over 11 days in April 2017; four death-row inmates here challenged the State’s clemency procedures and sought stays.
- Plaintiffs alleged the Arkansas Parole Board (the Board) violated Arkansas statutes, regulations, and Board policies during clemency processing (late/insufficient notice to stakeholders, filing deadlines moved forward, hearings shortened from two hours to one, hearings held within 30 days of execution), impairing their ability to obtain clemency.
- The district court held a three-day evidentiary hearing, found procedural shortcomings but concluded plaintiffs received the minimal due process required and that the irregularities did not make a ‘‘real difference’’; it denied preliminary injunctions (it stayed relief for one inmate, McGehee).
- Plaintiffs moved for stays of execution pending appeal; the Eighth Circuit initially heard the motion en banc and issued a per curiam decision denying the stays.
- The majority held that violations of state law/regulations alone do not automatically create a federal due process violation and that plaintiffs had not shown a significant possibility of success on the merits.
- Judge Kelly dissented, concluding the compressed schedule and cumulative statutory violations (notice, filing time, hearing length, impossibility of Governor acting in time) raised a significant possibility of success on a due process claim and that equities favored a stay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether state-law deviations in clemency procedures can, by themselves, establish a Fourteenth Amendment due process violation | Board’s failure to follow Arkansas statutes/policies made clemency functionally unavailable and thus violated due process | Violations of state procedural rules do not by themselves create a federal due process claim; plaintiffs must show more (arbitrariness or denial of minimal process) | Majority: State-law noncompliance alone insufficient; plaintiffs failed to show significant possibility of success on merits; stay denied |
| Whether the clemency process here denied the minimal procedural safeguards required by Woodard (i.e., access and non-arbitrariness) | Compressed schedule, inadequate notice, shortened hearings and procedural departures made the process arbitrary and impossible to meaningfully access | Despite imperfections, Board afforded minimal due process and could give due consideration; deviations did not rise to Woodard-level arbitrariness | Majority: Procedural shortcomings were less than in cases finding constitutional arbitrariness (e.g., Winfield); minimal due process satisfied |
| Whether plaintiffs must show a favorable Board recommendation to obtain relief for procedural defects | Plaintiffs: No — requiring proof of a favorable recommendation is circular; denial here may stem from the flawed process | State: Board’s recommendation (e.g., McGehee’s grant) undermines claims that defects were outcome-determinative | Majority: Statute requires 30-day notice only for recommending a grant; district court lawfully treated McGehee differently; plaintiffs did not show their claims ‘‘evaporated’’ but lacked success likelihood |
| Whether equities (irreparable harm, public interest, balance) favor a stay given the State’s interest in timely executions and the expiration of lethal-drug supplies | Plaintiffs: Interest in life outweighs State’s drug-expiration concern; procedural deprivation of clemency access causes irreparable harm | State: Strong interest in enforcing criminal judgments and avoiding undue interference; equity disfavors stays absent strong likelihood on merits | Majority: Because plaintiffs failed to show significant possibility of success, equitable stay relief not warranted; dissent would have granted stay based on likelihood and equities |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Lombardi, 809 F.3d 388 (8th Cir. 2015) (stay of execution is an equitable remedy; movant must show significant possibility of success)
- Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573 (2006) (stay of execution equitable principles; not of right)
- McGehee v. Hutchinson, 854 F.3d 488 (8th Cir. 2017) (prior challenge to Arkansas’s execution schedule/method)
- Woodard v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 523 U.S. 272 (1998) (Justice O’Connor concurrence: death-row clemency proceedings entitle applicants to minimal procedural safeguards)
- Winfield v. Steele, 755 F.3d 629 (8th Cir. 2014) (procedural irregularities in clemency that did not amount to arbitrary denial did not justify stay)
- Gissendaner v. Comm’r, Ga. Dep’t of Corr., 794 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 2015) (state procedural violations do not by themselves establish a federal due process claim)
- Duvall v. Keating, 162 F.3d 1058 (10th Cir. 1998) (minimal due process guarantees receipt of clemency procedures set by state law and forbids wholly arbitrary action)
- Faulder v. Texas Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 178 F.3d 343 (5th Cir. 1999) (review of cumulative procedural defects in parole/clemency processes)