Maurice Franks v. State Board of Pardons & Paroles (11th Cir. 2006)

Federal Circuits, 11th Cir. (December 13, 2006)

Docket number: 05-02428
Not Published

06-11466 - Not Published
Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/maurice-franks-board-pardons-paroles-25073811
Id. vLex: VLEX-25073811

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Request manual translation

Search in this document

Document options

Citations:

Loading article preview... cerrar

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Cir. - Gjr Investments, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. County of Escambia, Florida, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida, Lisa Minshew, Defendants, W.A. Lee, A.K.a Buck Lee, Wiley C. Page, Bennie Kenney, Defendants-Appellants. Gjr Investments, Inc. Plaintiff-Appellee, v. County of Escambia, Florida, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida, Defendant, Lisa Minshew, Defendant-Appellant, W.A. Lee, A.K.A. Buck Lee, Wiley C. Page, Bennie Kenney, Defendants., 132 F.3d 1359 (11th Cir. 1998)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Cir. - Phillip Alexander Atkins, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harry K. Singletary, Respondent-Appellee., 965 F.2d 952 (11th Cir. 1992)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Cir. - Jason Todd Murray, Petitioner-Appellant, v. United States of America, Respondent-Appellee., 145 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 1998)

See other documents that cite the same legislation

Text:

[D O NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

F O R THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILEDU.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

DECEMBER 13, 2006

N o . 06-11466

THOMAS K. KAHN

N o n - A r g u m e n t Calendar

CLERK

D . C. Docket No. 05-02428-CV-CAM-1

M A U R IC E FRANKS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

STATE BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES,

ANDREW HAODAWAY,

CALVIN D. MOOTINE,

Respondents-Appellees.

A p p e al from the United States District Court

fo r the Northern District of Georgia

(D ecem b er 13, 2006)

B efo re TJOFLAT, HULL and FAY, Circuit Judges.

P E R CURIAM:

M a u r ic e Franks, a Georgia prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district co u rt's dismissal without prejudice of his 28U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition fo r lack of exhaustion of his state remedies. This appeal is governed by the A n titerro rism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Pub. L. No.

1 0 4 -3 2 , 110 Stat. 1214 (1996), because Franks filed his petition after the effective d ate of the AEDPA. A judge of this Court granted a certificate of appealability ( C O A ) on: "Whether the district court erred by concluding that appellant had failed to exhaust his state remedies with respect to the claims raised in his 28U.S.C.

§ 2254 habeas corpus petition." For the reasons set forth more fully below, we a f f ir m .

C a re fu l review of Franks's appellate brief reveals that he has not addressed th e issue on which the COA was granted. Instead, Franks argues the merits of his u n d e r ly in g claim. Under the AEDPA, appellate review is limited to the issues sp ecified in the COA. 28U.S.C. § 2253; Murray v. United States, 145 F.3d 1249, 1 2 5 0 - 5 1 (11th Cir. 1998). However, Franks is a pro se litigant and is thus entitled to a lenient interpretation of his arguments on appeal. See GJR Invs., Inc. v. C o u n ty of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998). Nevertheless, we w ill not act as de facto counsel for a pro se litigant. Id. Even construing Franks's b rief liberally, there is no indication that he presents any arguments regarding the is su e on appeal. Therefore, Franks has abandoned the issue on which we granted th e COA. See Atkins v. Singletary, 965 F.2d 952, 955 n.1 (11th Cir. 1992) (co n clu d in g that an appellant abandons an issue not addressed on appeal).

Accordingly, as Franks has shown no reversible error, the district court's dismissal o f his § 2254 habeas petition is A F F IR M E D .