Case: 19-15005 Date Filed: 09/17/2020 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-15005
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 0:18-cv-60488-PCH; 0:15-cr-60025-CMA-1
TAYLOR JORDAN WARDLOW,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(September 17, 2020)
Before WILSON, JILL PRYOR, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
Case: 19-15005 Date Filed: 09/17/2020 Page: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Taylor Wardlow, a federal prisoner, appeals from the district court’s denial
of his motion to vacate his convictions under
28 U.S.C. § 2255. He argues, and the
government agrees, that the district court violated Clisby v. Jones,
960 F.2d 925,
936–37 (11th Cir. 1992) (en banc), by failing to address all four of his claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel.
We have said that a district court must resolve all claims for relief raised in a
§ 2255 motion, regardless of whether relief is granted or denied. 1 Rhode v. United
States,
583 F.3d 1289, 1291–92 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam); see Clisby,
960 F.2d
at 936 (addressing a § 2254 petition) . And we have said that when a district court
fails to consider every claim raised in a § 2255 motion and dismisses, “we will
vacate the judgment without prejudice and remand the case for consideration of all
the remaining claims.” See Dupree v. Warden,
715 F.3d 1295, 1298 (11th Cir.
2013) (addressing a § 2254 petition). We do not address whether an underlying
claim is meritorious. Id. at 1299.
With all that in mind, this is a pretty straightforward case. Wardlow raised
four distinct allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, each of which was an
1
In this context, a “claim for relief” is defined as “any allegation of a constitutional violation.”
Clisby,
960 F.2d at 936. Allegations of distinct constitutional violations constitute separate
claims for relief, even if the allegations arise from the same operative facts.
Id. Ineffective
assistance of counsel constitutes a violation of a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights, and, thus,
is a claim of a constitutional violation. Strickland v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668, 685–86 (1984).
2
Case: 19-15005 Date Filed: 09/17/2020 Page: 3 of 3
alleged constitutional violation and therefore its own claim for relief. See Rhode,
583 F.3d at 1291–92; Clisby,
960 F.2d at 936; Strickland,
466 U.S. at 686. The
district court did not meaningfully address three of Wardlow’s four ineffective-
assistance claims at the evidentiary hearing or in any of its orders. It follows then
that the district court’s denial of Wardlow’s § 2255 motion was in violation of
Rhode and Clisby. We therefore vacate and remand for the district court to
consider the rest of Wardlow’s ineffective-assistance claims.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
3
