11th Cir.

Pace v. Commissioner, Georgia Department of Corrections

June 26, 2026 ·1:24-cv-01557-SCJ ·Per Curiam · By Aisha Johnson

The Eleventh Circuit reversed a district court dismissal, holding that three Georgia death-row prisoners alleged sufficient facts to establish standing. The court found the prisoners faced a realistic danger of imminent injury due to unequal clemency preparation conditions compared to other inmates.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / 2:02

Background

Lyndon Pace, Jerry Heidler, and Warren King are Georgia death-row prisoners whose clemency proceedings were allegedly impaired by pandemic-era restrictions on legal visitation and record collection. Unlike other prisoners covered by a state agreement with the capital-defense bar, these three were excluded from the agreement’s protections, which guaranteed normal visitation and a waiting period before execution warrants. They sued under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses, alleging the state created two unequal classes of clemency applicants. The district court dismissed the case for lack of standing, concluding the injury was not imminent because district attorneys retained sole authority to seek execution warrants.

The court’s reasoning

The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the standing determination de novo. The court concluded that the prisoners adequately alleged a concrete, particularized, and imminent injury. The injury was concrete because the denial of equal treatment in clemency preparation is a traditional constitutional harm. It was particularized because it affected the prisoners personally. The injury was imminent because the state had vigorously defended its right to execute them, conceded standing in the district court, and had recently executed a similarly situated prisoner, Willie James Pye. The court rejected the argument that the district attorney’s theoretical ability to refuse a warrant negated imminence, noting the state controls the execution process and had never faced a refusal. The injury was traceable to the state and redressable by enjoining the state from seeking execution warrants until the agreement’s conditions were met.

What it means going forward

The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings on the merits of the equal protection and due process claims. The ruling clarifies that death-row prisoners may establish standing for imminent injury even when the execution process involves multiple actors, provided the state has demonstrated a realistic danger of enforcement.