Harris v. Secretary, Department of Corrections et al
Filing
6
ORDER that Harris's petition is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to terminate all pending motions and to close this case. COA and IFP on appeal denied. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 10/19/2015. (MCL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
MARCUS B. HARRIS,
Petitioner,
v.
Case No. 8:15-cv-2342-T-33EAJ
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
___________________________/
ORDER
Petitioner Marcus B. Harris, a state of Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a
petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). Harris challenges his
convictions for robbery with a deadly weapon and aggravated battery, entered by the
Circuit Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County, in 2013. Harris’s direct
appeal of these convictions remains pending in the state appellate court in case number
2D14-177. Upon review, his habeas petition must be dismissed.
In his federal habeas petition, Harris contends that (1) the State of Florida, as the
appellee in his direct appeal proceeding, has failed to timely file its answer brief under
Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.210(f),1 and (2) the state appellate court has failed
to enforce the Rule by granting the State numerous extensions of time to file its brief. (Doc.
1, p. 5.) Harris contends that this alleged failure to comply with state procedural rules has
resulted in a violation of his federal constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
1
This Rule provides that an answer brief shall be served within 20 days after service of the initial brief.
Fla. R. App. P. 9.210(f).
Page 1 of 3
(Doc. 1, pp. 13-14.)
Federal habeas relief is not available. The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act of 1996 governs this proceeding. Wilcox v. Florida Dep’t of Corr., 158 F.3d
1209, 1210 (11th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 840 (2000). Federal habeas relief may
only be granted if a state prisoner is in custody in violation of the Constitution, laws, or
treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Harris’s arguments are not cognizable
in the federal habeas petition because they concern matters of state law. See Branan v.
Booth, 861 F.2d 1507, 1508 (11th Cir. 1988) (“It is clear from [28 U.S.C. § 2254(a)] that a
habeas petition grounded on issues of state law provides no basis for habeas relief.”).
Harris’s assertion of a Fourteenth Amendment violation does not change this conclusion.
See id. (“This limitation on federal habeas review is of equal force when a petition, which
actually involves state law issues, is ‘couched in terms of equal protection and due
process.’”) (quoting Willeford v. Estelle, 538 F.2d 1194, 1198 (5th Cir. 1976)).
Furthermore, Harris’s claims of deficiencies in a state court proceeding cannot
provide federal habeas relief because they do not challenge the validity of his conviction.
Cf. Carroll v. Sec’y DOC, 574 F.3d 1354, 1365 (11th Cir. 2009) (“[A] challenge to a state
collateral proceeding does not undermine the legality of the detention or imprisonment–i.e.,
the conviction itself–and thus habeas relief is not an appropriate remedy.”); Quince v.
Crosby, 360 F.3d 1259, 1262 (11th Cir. 2004) (“[W]hile habeas relief is available to address
defects in a criminal defendant’s conviction and sentence, an alleged defect in a collateral
proceeding does not state a basis for habeas relief.”) (citing Spradley v. Dugger, 825 F.2d
1566, 1568 (11th Cir. 1987)).
Finally, as a prerequisite to federal habeas relief, a petitioner must first exhaust his
Page 2 of 3
state court remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). Even assuming Harris’s claims were
cognizable in the federal habeas petition, because his direct appeal remains pending, he
fails to show that he has exhausted available remedies in state court.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Harris’s Section 2254 petition is DISMISSED
without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to terminate all pending motions and to close this
case.
The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability pursuant to Rule 11(a) of
the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts because
Harris has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right as
required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Furthermore, because Harris is not entitled to a
certificate of appealability, he is not entitled to appeal in forma pauperis.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on October 19, 2015.
Marcus B. Harris
Page 3 of 3
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?