Case Explained: LYNDON FITZGERALD PACE JERRY SCOTT HEIDLER WARREN KING v. COMMISSIONER, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF GEORGIA WARDEN, GEORGIA DIAGNOSTIC AND CLASSIFICATION PRISON USCA11 Case: 24-13973 Document: 44-1 Date Filed: 06/26/2026 Page: 1 of 20 2

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Filed: 2026-06-26 Docket: 1:24-cv-01557-SCJ The eleventh-circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of a civil rights lawsuit brought by three Georgia death-row prisoners and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court held that the plaintiffs, Lyndon Pace, Jerry Heidler, and Warren King, satisfied the Article III standing requirements to sue under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, specifically alleging violations of the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause. The court applied the standard for determining whether a plaintiff has suffered an “injury in fact” that is concrete, particularized, and imminent. While acknowledging that Georgia district attorneys technically hold sole authority to seek execution warrants, the court found the plaintiffs’ injury was sufficiently imminent because the state exercises extensive control over the initiation of the execution process, having never refused a request from the state to pursue a warrant. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs faced a “substantial risk” and “realistic danger” of an impaired clemency proceeding due to pandemic-era restrictions on legal visitation and record collection, which would not apply to other prisoners covered by a separate state agreement. This unequal treatment constituted a concrete injury traceable to the state’s actions and redressable by the requested injunction barring execution until the conditions of that agreement were met. The practical consequence is that the case proceeds to the merits. The plaintiffs may now litigate their claims regarding disparate and arbitrary treatment in clemency proceedings, rather than being barred at the threshold for lack of standing. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.