U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 2014

Marcus A. Wellons v. Commissioner, Gorgia Department of Corrections

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Decided June 17, 2014 · Tjoflat, Marcus, Wilson

754 F.3d 1268; 2014 WL 2750236; 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11397 (Federal Reporter, Third Series)

Counsel

Gerald Wesley King, Jr., Jeffrey Lyn Ertel, Federal Defender Program, Inc., Mary Elizabeth Wells, Law Office of M.E. Wells, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellant., Beth Attaway Burton, Sabrina Graham, Georgia Department of Law, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Kelly Renee Gissendaner v. Commissioner, Georgia Department of Corrections (11th Cir. 2015)
Kelly Renee Gissendaner v. Commissioner, Georgia Department of Corrections (11th Cir. 2015)
Gary Ray Bowles v. Ron Desantis, Governor (11th Cir. 2019)
Darryl Barwick v. Governor of Florida (11th Cir. 2023)
Hand,et al v. Scott,et al (11th Cir. 2018)
Ledell Lee v. Asa Hutchinson (8th Cir. 2017)
Hand,et al v. Scott,et al (11th Cir. 2018)
Robert C. Lisk v. Lumber One Wood Preserving, LLC (11th Cir. 2015)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner Marcus A. Wellons appeals from the order of the district court denying his second motion for a stay of execution and all other denials of relief entered by the district court on June 17, 2014. Wellons alleges that as a result of Defendants’ actions, at least one corrections officer employed at the Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison, who was previously willing to provide a statement in support of clemency on Wellons’s behalf, now refuses to do so for fear of losing his or her job. The Supreme Court has recognized a very limited due process interest in clemency proceedings. See Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. Woodard, 523 U.S. 272, 283-285, 118 S.Ct. 1244, 1251, 140 L.Ed.2d 387 (1998) (plurality opinion) (holding that Ohio’s clemency procedures do not violate due process) 1 ; id. at 288-89, 118 S.Ct. at 1253 (O’Connor, J. concurring) (“I do not, however, agree with the suggestion in the principal opinion that, because clemency is committed to the discretion of the executive, the Due Process Clause provides no constitutional safeguards.”). 2 However, we agree with the district court that in this case Wellons has failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on his claim that he enjoys a due process or other Constitutional right with respect to his petition for clemency.

Therefore, Petitioner’s motion is DENIED.

. The plurality announced the Supreme Court’s opinion.

. Justice O’Connor was the fifth and decisive vote for the plurality opinion. Thus, her concurrence set binding precedent. See Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193, 97 S.Ct. 990, 993, 51 L.Ed.2d 260 (1977); Swisher Intern., Inc. v. Schafer, 550 F.3d 1046, 1053 (11th Cir. 2008).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.