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

Case: 14-12681 Date Filed: 06/17/2014 Page: 1 of 2
[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-12681-P
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv-01884-WBH
MARCUS A. WELLONS
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER,
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(June 17, 2014)
Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
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
Case: 14-12681 Date Filed: 06/17/2014 Page: 2 of 2
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 (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.
1
The plurality announced the Supreme Court’s opinion.
2
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 (1977); Swisher Intern., Inc. v. Schafer, 550 F.3d 1046, 1053 (11th Cir. 2008).