Noel v. Norris, 336 F.3d 648 (8th Cir. 2003). · Go Syfert
Noel v. Norris, 336 F.3d 648 (8th Cir. 2003). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
29 citation events (29 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ledell Lee v. Asa Hutchinson (ca8, 2017-04-20)
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2003 2014 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Ledell Lee v. Asa Hutchinson (2×)
8th Cir. · 2017 · signal: see · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
e cannot say that the process was so arbitrary as to be unconstitutional or that the state prohibited mr. noel from using the procedure that it had established.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Kelly Renee Gissendaner v. Commissioner, Georgia Department of Corrections
11th Cir. · 2015 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
f the state actively interferes with a prisoner's access to the very system that it has itself established for considering clemency petitions, due process is violated.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Kelly Renee Gissendaner v. Commissioner, Georgia Department of Corrections (2×) also: Cited "see"
11th Cir. · 2015 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
f the state actively interferes with a prisoner's access to the very system that it has itself established for considering clemency petitions, due process is violated.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cheyenne Fink v. Dexter Payne, Director, Arkansas Division of Correction
W.D. Ark. · 2026 · confidence medium
“Because clemency is extended mainly as a matter of grace, and the power to grant it is invested in the executive prerogative, it is a rare case that presents a successful due process challenge to clemency procedures themselves.” Id. (quoting Noel v. Norris, 336 F.3d 648, 649 (8th Cir. 2003)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Loren J. Larson Jr. v. State of Alaska, Department of Corrections, Board of Parole
Alaska · 2020 · confidence medium
Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 345 (2001) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“The furthest our cases have gone in imposing due process requirements upon analogous exercises of Executive discretion is . . . . requir[ing] ‘minimal procedural safeguards’ for death-penalty clemency proceedings, to prevent them from becoming so capricious as to involve ‘a state official flipp[ing] a coin to determine whether to grant clemency.’ ” (quoting Woodard, 523 U.S. at 289 (emphasis and second alteration in original))); then citing Noel v. Norris, 336 F.3d 648, 649 (8th Cir. 2003) (holding inmate’s due process righ…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lewis v. State, Department of Corrections (2×) also: Cited "see"
Alaska · 2006 · confidence medium
Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 345 , 121 S.Ct. 2271 , 150 L.Ed.2d 347 (2001) ("The furthest our cases have gone in imposing due process requirements upon analogous exercises of Executive discretion is ... requir[ing] 'minimal procedural safeguards' for death-penalty clemency proceedings, to prevent them from becoming so capricious as to involve ‘a state official flipping] a coin to determine whether to grant clemency.' ") (quoting Woodard, 523 U.S. at 289 , 118 S.Ct. 1244 ); Noel v. Norris, 336 F.3d 648, 649 (8th Cir.2003) (holding due process not violated where inmate was not allowed to undergo special…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Hutchins (2×)
C.A.A.F. · 2013 · signal: see also · confidence low
Duvall v. Keating, 162 F.3d 1058 (10th Cir. 1998); see also Noel v. Norris, 336 F.3d 648 (8th Cir. 2003) (if a state actively interferes with a prisoner’s access to the system that it has established for considering clemency petitions, due process is violated).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Hutchins
C.A.A.F. · 2013 · signal: see also · confidence low
Duvall v. Keating, 162 F.3d 1058 (10th Cir. 1998); see also Noel v. Norris, 336 F.3d 648 (8th Cir. 2003) (if a state actively interferes with a prisoner’s access to the system that it has established for considering clemency petitions, due process is violated).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Riley Dobi Noel
v.
Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction Mike Huckabee, Governor of Arkansas Marvin Evans, Warden, Tucker Maximum Security Unit Leroy Brownlee John Belken John Felts Joe Franklin Erma Hendrix Carolyn Robinson Larry Zeno Arkansas Post Prison Transfer Board
03-2512.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Jul 8, 2003.
336 F.3d 648

336 F.3d 648

Riley Dobi NOEL, Appellant,
v.
Larry NORRIS, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction; Mike Huckabee, Governor of Arkansas; Marvin Evans, Warden, Tucker Maximum Security Unit; Leroy Brownlee; John Belken; John Felts; Joe Franklin; Erma Hendrix; Carolyn Robinson; Larry Zeno; Arkansas Post Prison Transfer Board, Appellees.

No. 03-2512.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: July 2, 2003.

Filed: July 8, 2003.

Craig Lambert, argued, Little Rock, AR, for appellant.

Joseph V. Svoboda, argued, Little Rock, AR, for appellee.

Before BOWMAN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

[*~648]1

This is an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought by Riley Dobi Noel, a prisoner under sentence of death. He claims that the State of Arkansas violated his constitutional right to due process when it interfered with his ability to prepare and present his case for executive clemency.

[*648]2

Because clemency is extended mainly as a matter of grace, and the power to grant it is vested in the executive prerogative, it is a rare case that presents a successful due process challenge to clemency procedures themselves. See Ohio Adult Parole Auth. v. Woodard, 523 U.S. 272, 280-81, 118 S.Ct. 1244, 140 L.Ed.2d 387 (1998). On the other hand, if the state actively interferes with a prisoner's access to the very system that it has itself established for considering clemency petitions, due process is violated. See Young v. Hayes, 218 F.3d 850, 853 (8th Cir.2000).

3

Mr. Noel's claim seems to be a kind of amalgam. He asserts that state officials did not give him enough time to prepare for his clemency hearing and that the state would not allow him to undergo a particular kind of brain-scan procedure to prove his assertion that his brain damage ought to be considered on the question of whether he deserved clemency.

[*648]4

We think that Mr. Noel's claim must be rejected. He presented a four-hundred page record to the state authority charged with making recommendations concerning clemency, and that authority denied his request. The materials that he presented included some evidence, though not the particular evidence that Mr. Noel sought to produce, of his brain damage. He does not claim that he was prevented from presenting any other kind of evidence. In the circumstances, we cannot say that the process was so arbitrary as to be unconstitutional or that the state prohibited Mr. Noel from using the procedure that it had established.

5

We have examined Mr. Noel's equal protection claim and find it to be meritless.

[*~649]6

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.