Dennis Wright v. Secretary, FL DOC, et al

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Dennis Morrison Wright. Decision: Vacated and Remanded. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam.

Case: 13-14002

Date Filed: 11/06/2014

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-14002
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:12-cv-00978-GKS-GJK

DENNIS MORRISON WRIGHT,
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
________________________
(November 6, 2014)
Before HULL, MARCUS and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 13-14002

Date Filed: 11/06/2014

Page: 2 of 3

Dennis Morrison Wright, a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the
district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 federal habeas petition. We granted
Wright a certificate of appealability on the issue of “[w]hether the district court
violated Clisby v. Jones, 960 F.2d 925 (11th Cir. 1992), by failing to address
Wright’s claim that the State violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.”
The State concedes that the district court did not address Wright’s Sixth
Amendment speedy trial claim.
“When examining a district court’s denial of a § 2254 habeas petition, we
review questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact de novo, and findings
of fact for clear error.” Stewart v. Sec’y, Dep't of Corr., 476 F.3d 1193, 1208 (11th
Cir. 2007). In Clisby, we expressed our “deep concern over the piecemeal
litigation of federal habeas petitions filed by state prisoners, as exemplified by the
district court’s failure to resolve all claims in [that] case.” 960 F.2d at 935. Thus,
we held that district courts must resolve all claims for relief raised in § 2254
habeas petitions, regardless of whether relief is granted or denied. Id. at 936. A
“claim for relief” is defined as “any allegation of a constitutional violation.” Id.
Allegations of distinct constitutional violations constitute separate claims for relief,
“even if both allegations arise from the same alleged set of operative facts.” Id.
In this case, Wright’s memorandum of law in support of his habeas petition
raised two grounds for relief: (1) a violation of his right to a speedy trial under the
2

Case: 13-14002

Date Filed: 11/06/2014

Page: 3 of 3

Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IADA) and (2) a violation of his right to a
speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment. The district court held that Wright’s
IADA claim was procedurally barred. However, as the State concedes, the district
court did not address Wright’s Sixth Amendment claim. Therefore, its order did
not comply with the requirements of Clisby. See Long v. United States, 626 F.3d
1167, 1170 (11th Cir. 2010) (“[T]he 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.”). We
vacate without prejudice and remand for the district court to rule on Wright’s Sixth
Amendment claim.
VACATED AND REMANDED.

3