Harry McCray v. Secretary, Florida Department, et al

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Harry McCray. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 15-10649

Date Filed: 08/31/2016

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-10649
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:14-cv-62864-WPD
HARRY MCCRAY,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondents-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(August 31, 2016)
Before HULL, JORDAN and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 15-10649

Date Filed: 08/31/2016

Page: 2 of 3

Harry McCray, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of
his § 2254 habeas corpus petition for failure to satisfy the “in custody” requirement
for federal habeas jurisdiction and for being time-barred. A certificate of
appealability (“COA”) was granted on the following two issues:
(1)

Whether the district court’s procedural ruling that it lacked
jurisdiction to entertain the § 2254 petition with respect to the
civil commitment claim was correct.

(2)

Whether the district court’s procedural ruling that the § 2254
petition was untimely was correct.

On appeal, McCray reiterates his substantive challenges to his 2006
convictions, including his claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel,
that his counsel had a conflict of interest, and that the jury instructions regarding
his counts of conviction were deficient. He does not address the issues articulated
in the COA.
We review de novo a district court’s decision to dismiss a habeas petition for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Diaz v. Fla. Fourth Judicial Circuit ex rel.
Duval Cnty., 683 F.3d 1261, 1263 (11th Cir. 2012). The scope of review in a
habeas appeal is limited to the issues specified in the COA. Murray v. United
States, 145 F.3d 1249, 1250 (11th Cir. 1998). Although we read pro se briefs
liberally, issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned.
Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008).

2

Case: 15-10649

Date Filed: 08/31/2016

Page: 3 of 3

Because McCray’s appellate brief does not address either of the two issues
specified in the COA, those issues have been abandoned, and his substantive
arguments on appeal about his 2006 convictions cannot be considered.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of McCray’s § 2254 petition.
AFFIRMED.

3