Eddie Humphrey v. Florida Dept. Of Corrections , 450 F. App'x 877 ( 2012 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JANUARY 9, 2012
No. 11-13549
Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY
CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:11-cv-60625-WPD
EDDIE HUMPHREY,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll l Respondent - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(January 9, 2012)
Before BARKETT, MARCUS and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Eddie Humphrey, a Florida state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the
district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 federal habeas petition.1 After
careful review, we affirm.
Humphrey argues on appeal that his equal protection and due process rights
were violated when his wife was compelled to testify against him at his state court
trial.2 He did not, however, raise these equal protection and due process claims in
state court. Instead, he argued in his state post-conviction proceedings that his
trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to his wife’s testimony. He does
not raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim here.
“A state habeas corpus petitioner who fails to raise his federal claims
properly in state court is procedurally barred from pursuing the same claim in
federal court absent a showing of cause for and actual prejudice from the default.”
Bailey v. Nagle, 172 F.3d 1299, 1302 (11th Cir. 1999). When a petitioner has
failed to present a claim to the state courts and “it is obvious that the unexhausted
claims would be procedurally barred in state court due to a state-law procedural
default, we can forego the needless ‘judicial ping-pong’ and just treat those claims
now barred by state law as no basis for federal habeas relief.” Snowden v.
1
We review de novo the district court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition. McNair v.
Campbell, 416 F.3d 1291, 1297 (11th Cir. 2005).
2
The district court granted Humphrey a Certificate of Appealability on this issue.
2
Singletary, 135 F.3d 732, 736 (11th Cir. 1998). Here, Humphrey’s failure to raise
his equal protection and due process claims on direct appeal or in his first state
post-conviction petition in the Florida courts bars him from raising the issues in a
successive petition, see Mills v. Florida, 684 So. 2d 801, 804 n.3 (Fla.1996), and
he has failed to show good cause for the default. Thus, his equal protection and
due process claims are procedurally barred.
AFFIRMED.
3