Steven Clayton Thomason v. Attorney General, State of Alabama ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • USCA11 Case: 20-12685    Date Filed: 10/13/2021   Page: 1 of 4
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    In the
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eleventh Circuit
    ____________________
    No. 20-12685
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ____________________
    STEVEN CLAYTON THOMASON,
    Petitioner-Appellant,
    versus
    STATE OF ALABAMA HOME BUILDERS LICENSURE BOARD,
    Respondent,
    USCA11 Case: 20-12685        Date Filed: 10/13/2021     Page: 2 of 4
    2                      Opinion of the Court                20-12685
    ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF ALABAMA,
    Respondent-Appellee.
    ____________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Alabama
    D.C. Docket Nos. 2:19-cv-00160-MHT-CSC
    ____________________
    Before JILL PRYOR, LUCK, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Steven Thomason appeals the district court’s denial of his
    Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(c) motion and his motion to reconsider in his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     proceedings, which resulted in his § 2254 petition be-
    ing dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. He argues that
    the district court erred in denying his Rule 52(c) motion because he
    alleged sufficient facts in his § 2254 petition that would allow the
    district court to make partial findings necessary to find that he was
    entitled to habeas relief.
    USCA11 Case: 20-12685         Date Filed: 10/13/2021     Page: 3 of 4
    20-12685                Opinion of the Court                         3
    “Whether a petitioner is in custody pursuant to the judg-
    ment of a State court is a jurisdictional question” we review de
    novo. Diaz v. State of Fla. Fourth Jud. Cir. ex rel. Duval Cty., 
    683 F.3d 1261
    , 1263 (11th Cir. 2012) (quotation marks omitted). Where
    we have jurisdiction, we review the district court’s denial of a mo-
    tion for entry of Rule 52(c) final judgment for an abuse of discre-
    tion. See In re Fisher Island Inv., Inc., 
    778 F.3d 1172
    , 1198 (11th
    Cir. 2015) (noting court’s discretion in deciding whether to grant
    Rule 52(c) motion).
    Rule 52(c) provides as follows:
    If a party has been fully heard on an issue during a
    nonjury trial and the court finds against the party on
    that issue, the court may enter judgment against the
    party on a claim or defense that, under the controlling
    law, can be maintained or defeated only with a favor-
    able finding on that issue. The court may, however,
    decline to render any judgment until the close of the
    evidence. A judgment on partial findings must be
    supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law
    as required by Rule 52(a).
    Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(c).
    Here, the district court did not err or otherwise abuse its dis-
    cretion in denying Thomason’s Rule 52(c) motion or the motion
    for reconsideration. There was never a bench trial or judicial fact-
    finding necessary for the district court to make a judgment on
    USCA11 Case: 20-12685         Date Filed: 10/13/2021    Page: 4 of 4
    4                      Opinion of the Court                 20-12685
    partial findings. Thomason was not entitled to the district court
    using the Rule 52(c) motion to revisit his claims in his § 2254 peti-
    tion or to any other relief via that motion because the district court
    dismissed the petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-12685

Filed Date: 10/13/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/13/2021