Edward Locascio v. Florida Department of Correcti, et al
Filing
Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Edward S. Locascio. 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: 15-12425
Date Filed: 05/03/2017
Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-12425
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv-22767-MGC
EDWARD S. LOCASCIO,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondents-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(May 3, 2017)
Before WILSON, JORDAN, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-12425
Date Filed: 05/03/2017
Page: 2 of 4
Edward Locascio, a Florida prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s
dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. A certificate of appealability was granted on the following issue:
Whether the district court violated Clisby v. Jones, 960 F.2d 925 (11th Cir.
1992) (en banc), by not addressing the timeliness arguments that Locascio
raised in his reply to the state’s response and his objections to the report and
recommendation.
After a careful review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm.
We review de novo a district court’s legal conclusions in § 2254
proceedings, and we review its findings of fact for clear error. Osborne v. Terry,
466 F.3d 1298, 1304–05 (11th Cir. 2006).
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 imposes a oneyear statute of limitations on a state prisoner’s § 2254 habeas petition. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(d)(1). The one-year limitations period is subject to equitable tolling, which
applies when a petitioner untimely files because of “extraordinary circumstances
that are both beyond his control and unavoidable even with diligence.” See Steed
v. Head, 219 F.3d 1298, 1300 (11th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted).
In Clisby, we instructed district courts to resolve all constitutional claims for
relief raised in a habeas petition prior to granting or denying relief. See Clisby, 960
F.2d at 936. If the district court does not address all such claims prior to issuing
judgment, we “will vacate the district court’s judgment without prejudice and
remand the case for consideration of all remaining claims . . . .” Id. at 938. In
2
Case: 15-12425
Date Filed: 05/03/2017
Page: 3 of 4
Long, we considered whether Clisby applied in a case where the district court
dismissed a § 2255 motion as untimely, but failed to address the defendant’s
equitable tolling claim. See Long v. United States, 626 F.3d 1167, 1168–69 (11th
Cir. 2010) (per curiam). We held that the district court violated Clisby when it
failed to address the defendant’s claim for statutory tolling. See id. at 1170. We
noted that “the district court must create a record that will facilitate meaningful
appellate review of the correctness of the procedural ruling . . . .” Id.
In this case, the district sufficiently examined Locascio’s equitable tolling
claim to comply with Clisby. While Locascio did not raise a claim of equitable
tolling until after the report and recommendation, the magistrate judge did address
a possible claim of equitable tolling. The magistrate judge, in reviewing
Locascio’s motion to amend the Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850 motion, found that Locascio
filed the motion only to comply with time limitations, as Locascio did not attach a
proposed amended motion or discuss the issues he wanted to raise. The magistrate
judge noted that Locascio waited over a year-and-a-half to file his amended
motion. Thus the magistrate judge found that Locascio failed to exercise due
diligence in pursuing collateral relief. Although Locascio later argued that
extraordinary circumstances prevented him from filing a timely motion to amend,
the magistrate judge’s finding that Locascio failed to exercise due diligence, and
the district court’s later adoption of that finding, was dispositive as to Locascio’s
3
Case: 15-12425
Date Filed: 05/03/2017
Page: 4 of 4
claim of equitable tolling. See Steed, 219 F.3d at 1300. The district court’s finding
regarding due diligence was sufficient to develop meaningful appellate review and
to comply with Clisby. See Long, 626 F.3d at 1170.
AFFIRMED.
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?