David Kelly Brewster v. Department of Corrections, 11th Cir. (2009)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsDavid Kelly Brewster v. Department of Corrections, 11th Cir. (2009)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government Docs[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 08-13474
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
APRIL 15, 2009
THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 07-14205-CV-KMM
DAVID KELLY BREWSTER,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Walter A. McNeil,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(April 15, 2009)
Before DUBINA, MARCUS and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant David Kelly Brewster, a Florida state prisoner proceeding pro se,
appeals the district courts denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus petition,
raising numerous claims for relief. However, we granted Brewsters motion for a
certificate of appealability on the following issue only: Whether the district court
violated Clisby v. Jones, 960 F.2d 925, 936 (11th Cir. 1992), when it failed to
address [Brewsters] claim that his due process rights were violated where the
evidence presented at trial did not support his conviction for bank fraud.
We review de novo the district courts denial of habeas relief under 28
U.S.C. 2254. Gamble v. Secy, Dept of Corr., 450 F.3d 1245, 1247 (11th Cir.
2006). Out of deep concern over the piecemeal litigation of federal habeas
petitions, in Clisby we exercised our supervisory authority over the district courts
and instructed them to resolve all claims for relief raised in a petition for habeas
corpus relief, regardless of whether habeas relief is granted or denied. 960 F.2d at
935-36. The procedures for handling habeas petitions were likewise designed to
minimize disruption of the state criminal justice system. Id. at 935. A claim for
relief is defined as any allegation of a constitutional violation. Id. at 936.
When a district court fails to resolve all of the claims in a habeas petition, we will
vacate the district courts judgment without prejudice and remand the case for
consideration of all remaining claims. Id. at 938.
Because the record here demonstrates that the district court failed to resolve
Brewsters claim that his constitutional due process rights were violated because
the prosecution failed to prove all the elements of the charged offense, the district
courts judgment violated Clisby. Accordingly, we vacate the district courts
judgment and remand Brewsters due process claim for consideration by the
district court.
VACATED and REMANDED.
