Wendell Harper Smith v. Warden Don Jarriel , 429 F. App'x 936 ( 2011 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-12862 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar JUNE 13, 2011
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 1:07-cv-00010-WLS-RLH
WENDELL HARPER SMITH,
lllllllllllllllllllll Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
WARDEN DON JARRIEL,
lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
________________________
(June 13, 2011)
Before EDMONDSON, PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Wendell Smith, a Georgia state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the
district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We granted a COA on the
following issue:
Whether the district court committed a procedural error by declining to
review the merits of Smith’s claim concerning the state trial court’s
admission into evidence of two photographs of the victim’s dead body.
We now hold that the district court committed procedural error, and as a result we
reverse.
We review a district court’s denial of a § 2254 petition de novo. Digsby v.
McNeil, 627 F.3d 823, 830 (11th Cir. 2010). When a district court fails to address
all of the claims presented by the petitioner, however, we “will vacate the district
court’s judgment without prejudice and remand the case for consideration of all
remaining claims.” Clisby v. Jones, 960 F.2d 925, 938 (11th Cir. 1992) (en banc).
Of course not all errors in state trial proceedings support claims for habeas
relief. As relevant here, a federal court reviewing a state prisoner’s habeas
petition may not “reexamine state-court determinations on state-law questions,”
Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67–68, 112 S. Ct. 475, 480 (1991), but it may
review state evidentiary rulings to determine whether the rulings violated the
petitioner’s due process rights. Felker v. Turpin, 83 F.3d 1303, 1311-12 (11th Cir.
1996). In such instances, the inquiry is limited to determining whether evidentiary
2
errors “‘so infused the trial with unfairness as to deny due process of law.’”
Felker, 83 F.3d at 1311 (quoting Lisenba v. California, 314 U.S. 219, 228, 62 S.
Ct. 280, 286 (1941)) (citations omitted).
Adhering to these rules, the district court accepted and adopted the
Magistrate Judge’s Report, which dismissed the claim underlying this appeal –
Ground 7 in Smith’s underlying habeas petition – because that claim failed “to
present [a] proper ground[] for habeas corpus relief.” According to the Magistrate
Judge, this is so because:
Evidentiary errors in the admission of photographs, which are matters
of state law, ordinarily will not support the granting of habeas relief.
Smith v. Newsom, 876 F.2d 1461, 1468 (11th Cir. 1989). “It is not the
province of a federal habeas Court to reexamine state-court
determinations on state-law questions.” [Estelle, 502 U.S. at 67–68, 112
S. Ct. at 480].
We take from this discussion that the Magistrate Judge concluded that Smith
failed to plead a federal constitutional violation in his petition, and as a result
denied Smith’s claim as one seeking habeas relief premised upon state evidentiary
errors.1
1
Similarly, by describing the Report and Recommendation as “[finding Ground 7] to be
[an] inapplicable ground[] for federal habeas relief,” the District Court appears to have reached
the same conclusion that Ground 7 did not present a claim for relief premised upon the
Constitution. Thus, because neither the Magistrate Judge nor the District Court inquired into the
merits of Smith’s due process claim, the record belies the Respondent’s contention that the
District Court “by implication” ruled on the merits of Smith’s due process claim, and we
therefore reject that argument.
3
We think, however, that the Magistrate Judge failed to afford Smith’s pro se
petition the liberal construction to which it is entitled. Our longstanding rule is
that the pleadings of a pro se litigant are liberally construed. Bellizia v. Florida,
Dep’t of Corr., 614 F.3d 1326, 1329 (11th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, courts must
show leniency to pro se litigants, even as they should not serve as de facto counsel
or rewrite a pleading in order to sustain an action. GJR Invs., Inc. v. County of
Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998), overruled on other grounds
as recognized in, Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701, 709 (11th Cir. 2010).
A liberal construction of Smith’s petition compels the conclusion that Smith
pled a federal due process violation. Smith’s habeas pleadings described “Ground
Seven” as “Trial court abused its discretion by admitting Two photographs[] . . .
that were highly prejudicial.” Smith later supplemented his petition, explaining in
his “Brief in Support of petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254” that the prejudice
from the photographs “violated Due Process.” And petitioner’s objections to the
magistrate’s report and recommendation stated that the magistrate erred by not
concluding that the challenged photographs prejudiced his right to a fair trial in
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. As clarified in these filings, petitioner’s
evidentiary claim was a constitutional due process claim that prejudice from the
4
offending photographs so infected the integrity of his trial as to warrant habeas
relief.
Because we need not rewrite petitioner’s assertions or otherwise act as
counsel for Smith to conclude he is invoking his constitutional right to due
process, see GJR Invs., 132 F.3d at 1369, his habeas petition should be construed
to raise a claim for habeas relief premised on the Due Process Clause of the United
States Constitution. U.S. Const. amend. XIV. Therefore, we hold that Smith has
presented a proper ground for federal habeas relief.
The upshot of this holding is that Smith has raised a potentially viable claim
for habeas relief that was not passed upon by the district court’s initial Order
disposing of his habeas petition.2 For this reason, we must vacate the Order below
and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Clisby, 960 F.2d
at 938.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
2
We hold only that Smith has pled a federal claim, but take no position as to the merits of
that claim.
5