Raymond Claudio v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections , 578 F. App'x 797 ( 2014 )

Case: 13-11136 Date Filed: 08/20/2014 Page: 1 of 8
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-11136
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:13-cv-00178-MMH-TEM
RAYMOND CLAUDIO,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondents-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(August 20, 2014)
Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 13-11136 Date Filed: 08/20/2014 Page: 2 of 8
This court’s opinion in this case dated July 7, 2014, is hereby modified. As
modified, the opinion reads as follows.
Raymond Claudio, now a former Florida state prisoner proceeding pro se,
appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition
for failure to exhaust state remedies. Claudio, who filed this § 2254 petition while
he was still in state custody, filed a motion to excuse exhaustion due to alleged
lengthy delays in adjudicating his still pending state post-conviction motion, and
the district court sua sponte dismissed the case without requiring a response from
the state or having a record of Claudio’s state post-conviction proceedings. We
granted a certificate of appealability (“COA”) on the following issues:
(1) Whether, in light of this Court’s decision in Long v. United
States, 626 F.3d 1167, 1168 (11th Cir. 2010), the district court
violated Clisby v. Jones, 960 F.2d 925 (11th Cir. 1992), by
failing to address Claudio’s claim that he was entitled to be
excused from the exhaustion requirement, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(B);
(2) If the district court did not violate Clisby v. Jones, whether the
court erred in determining, without obtaining the state record or
holding an evidentiary hearing, that Claudio had not shown
circumstances that demonstrate that he should be excused from
exhaustion pursuant to § 2254(b)(1)(B); and
(3) If the district court did not err in concluding that Claudio was
required to exhaust his state remedies, whether the court erred
in failing to hold the claims in abeyance, rather than dismiss
them without prejudice, as it appears that Claudio’s release
from prison may prevent him from meeting the “in custody”
requirement when he refiles his § 2254 petition after exhausting
his state remedies.
2
Case: 13-11136 Date Filed: 08/20/2014 Page: 3 of 8
We review de novo a district court’s legal conclusions in a § 2254
proceeding, and review for clear error its findings of fact. Osborne v. Terry,
466 F.3d 1298, 1304-05 (11th Cir. 2006). A habeas petitioner must be “in
custody” for the district court to have subject matter jurisdiction over a habeas
petition attacking the state conviction, meaning that “the state must exercise some
control over the petitioner to satisfy the ‘in custody’ requirement.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(a); Stacey v. Warden, Apalachee Corr. Inst., 854 F.2d 401, 403 (11th Cir.
1988).
A state prisoner must exhaust all state remedies that are available for
challenging his conviction prior to bringing a habeas action in federal court.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A), (c). A state prisoner is excused from the exhaustion
requirement if (1) “there is an absence of available State corrective process,” or
(2) “circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect the rights of
the applicant.” Id. § 2254(b)(1)(B)(i), (ii). In a case decided before the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), we stated that
“[s]tate remedies will be found ineffective and a federal habeas petitioner will be
excused from exhausting them in the case of unreasonable, unexplained state
delays in acting on the petitioner’s motion for state relief.” Cook v. Fla. Parole &
Prob. Comm’n, 749 F.2d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 1985); see also Galtieri v.
Wainwright, 582 F.2d 348, 354 n.12 (5th Cir. 1978) (en banc) (noting, in a
3
Case: 13-11136 Date Filed: 08/20/2014 Page: 4 of 8
pre-AEDPA case, that exhaustion is not required where “the state procedures do
not afford swift vindication” or “state procedural snarls or obstacles preclude an
effective state remedy”) (citation omitted); Dixon v. State of Fla., 388 F.2d 424,
425-26 (5th Cir. 1968) (holding, in a pre-AEDPA case, that an “inordinate and
unjustified delay in the state corrective process may well result in the frustration of
petitioner’s rights and be such a circumstance as to render [the exhaustion] process
ineffective,” and remanding the case to the district court to determine whether a
19-month delay in state court was justifiable).
The district court has the discretion to deny a § 2254 petition on the merits
even if the petitioner did not exhaust his state remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2).
However, the state is not deemed to have waived the exhaustion requirement
unless the state expressly waives that requirement through counsel. Id.
§ 2254(b)(3).
If a petitioner fails to exhaust state remedies, the district court should
dismiss the petition without prejudice to allow exhaustion. Rose v. Lundy,
455 U.S. 509, 519-20, 102 S. Ct. 1198, 1203-05, 71 L. Ed. 2d 379 (1982). In the
event that such a dismissal would result in any subsequent petition being barred
from federal habeas review, the district court has discretion to employ a
“stay-and-abeyance” procedure, whereby the court would stay the timely filed
petition and hold it in abeyance while the petitioner returns to state court to exhaust
4
Case: 13-11136 Date Filed: 08/20/2014 Page: 5 of 8
all of his previously unexhausted claims. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 275-79,
125 S. Ct. 1528, 1533-35, 161 L. Ed. 2d 440 (2005). The Supreme Court explained
that such a procedure “should be available only in limited circumstances,” and only
is appropriate when (1) there was good cause for the petitioner’s failure to exhaust
his claims first in state court, (2) the unexhausted claims are not plainly meritless,
and (3) there is no indication that the petitioner engaged in intentionally dilatory
litigation tactics. Id. at 277-78, 125 S.Ct. at 1535.
The district court must resolve all claims for relief raised in a § 2254 petition
for habeas corpus, regardless of whether habeas relief is granted or denied. Clisby,
960 F.2d at 936. A claim is defined as “any allegation of a constitutional
violation.” Id. In Long, we considered whether the district court violated Clisby
by failing to address Long’s claim that he was entitled to statutory tolling of the
limitations period. Long, 626 F.3d at 1168. We concluded that Clisby’s
requirement that district courts address all claims also required the courts to
resolve all claims that petitioners raised regarding tolling of the limitations period,
and we held that the district court in Long’s case had violated Clisby. Id. at 1170.
In reaching this conclusion, we noted that:
[I]n a post-conviction case, the district court must develop a record
sufficient to facilitate our review of all issues pertinent to an
application for a COA and, by extension, the ultimate merit of any
issues for which a COA is granted. If the post-conviction motion or
petition is dismissed as untimely, the district court must create a
record that will facilitate meaningful appellate review of the
5
Case: 13-11136 Date Filed: 08/20/2014 Page: 6 of 8
correctness of the procedural ruling, the merit of the underlying
substantive claims, or both . . . .
Id. Additionally, district courts must “facilitate meaningful appellate review by
developing adequate factual records and making sufficiently clear findings as to
the key issues.” Id. We vacated and remanded the case for the district court to
consider Long’s arguments in favor of statutory tolling. Id.
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 201, we may take judicial notice of “a fact
that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within
the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily
determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.”
Fed.R.Evid. 201(b). We may take judicial notice on our own at any stage of a
proceeding. Id. 201(c)-(d). We may “take judicial notice of the state and federal
court proceedings in which [a petitioner] was convicted or attacked his
conviction.” Cunningham v. Dist. Att’y’s Office for Escambia Cnty., 592 F.3d
1237, 1255 (11th Cir. 2010). In Cunningham, we considered Cunningham’s cause
of action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. at 1241. In ruling on Cunningham’s
case, we also considered the records from the “more than half a dozen separate
attacks on his conviction in state and federal court.” Id. at 1241, 1251-53,
1255 n.10.
District courts have “unquestionable” authority to control their own dockets.
Smith v. Psychiatric Solutions, Inc., 750 F.3d 1253, 1262 (11th Cir. 2014). Such
6
Case: 13-11136 Date Filed: 08/20/2014 Page: 7 of 8
authority includes “broad discretion in deciding how best to manage the cases
before them.” Id. (citation omitted).
In his motion to excuse exhaustion, Claudio alleged circumstances that may
have rendered exhaustion of his claims in state court ineffective to protect his
rights. However, we cannot determine whether the district court correctly
dismissed the case because there is no factual record or factual findings on which
to evaluate the dismissal. Accordingly, after review of the record and
consideration of Claudio’s brief on appeal, we vacate the district court’s sua sponte
dismissal and remand the case for the district court to make adequate factual
findings with regard to Claudio’s motion to excuse exhaustion. On remand, if the
district court finds that Claudio has not yet fully exhausted his state court remedies,
it should also consider whether the stay-and-abeyance procedure is appropriate,
given that Claudio has fully completed his sentence since he filed his § 2254
petition.
Because we vacate the district court’s dismissal pursuant to Issue 2 of the
COA, we decline to reach the issues raised in Issues 1 and 3 of the order granting a
COA.
Finally, in reaching this holding, we also have taken judicial notice of the
fact that, during the pendency of the instant appeal, Claudio filed an additional
§ 2254 petition in the district court attacking the same conviction. The district
7
Case: 13-11136 Date Filed: 08/20/2014 Page: 8 of 8
court has developed a record in that case that includes an appendix of the state
court proceedings and the parties’ arguments concerning exhaustion, but has not
yet rendered a judgment. We recognize that the district court has the authority to
manage its own docket in addressing Claudio’s duplicative § 2254 petition, and we
anticipate that the district court will do so in a way that reconciles his duplicative
petitions but still respects our mandate in this case.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
8