From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Spradley v. Dugger

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Aug 31, 1987
825 F.2d 1566 (11th Cir. 1987)

Summary

holding that habeas petitioner's claim that errors in Rule 3.850 proceeding violated his right to due process did not state a basis for habeas relief because the claim "[went] to issues unrelated to the cause of petitioner's detention."

Summary of this case from Blanton v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.

Opinion

No. 87-3006. Non-Argument Calendar.

August 31, 1987.

Glenn Spradley, pro se.

William I. Munsey, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, Fla., for respondents-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Before HILL, KRAVITCH and CLARK, Circuit Judges.


Petitioner Glenn Lamar Spradley, a Florida inmate, appeals the district court's denial of his habeas petition. The district court dismissed two of his claims as an abuse of the writ and one on the merits. We reverse in part and affirm in part.

Petitioner filed a habeas petition in federal district court asserting three claims: (1) that the state trial court which heard and denied his 3.850 motion violated his due process rights because it failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing and did not attach to its opinion denying relief those portions of the record on which it relied; (2) that the state trial court violated his due process rights in retaining jurisdiction over petitioner's sentences; and (3) that the trial court's use of the enhanced sentencing provisions of Fla.Stat. 775.087(1) violated the double jeopardy clause.

The district court issued an order to show cause and the state filed a response. In its response the state observed that petitioner previously had filed a habeas petition raising at least related grounds. The state did not affirmatively plead abuse of the writ, nor did the state file a motion for summary judgment.

The district court, sua sponte and without notice to petitioner, treated the state's response as a motion for summary judgment. Having created a motion for summary judgment, the district court sua sponte raised the issue of whether Spradley's petition constituted an abuse of the writ. The district court then granted summary judgment for the state.

The district court granted petitioner a certificate of probable cause by order dated December 15, 1986.

I.

The district court based its dismissal of claims (2) and (3) on Rule 9(o) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Because the district court failed to provide petitioner either with notice that it was considering dismissal pursuant to Rule 9(b) or with an opportunity to respond, we reverse the grant of summary judgment and remand.

Abuse of the writ is an affirmative defense which must be either plead by the state with clarity and particularity, see Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 10-11, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 1074-75, 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963); Price v. Johnston, 334 U.S. 266, 291-92, 68 S.Ct. 1049, 1063, 92 L.Ed. 1356 (1948); Advisory Committee Note to Rule 9(b), 28 U.S.C.A. at 1139, or raised sua sponte by the court. See Thigpen v. Smith, 792 F.2d 1507, 1515 n. 13 (11th Cir. 1986); Manning v. Warden Louisiana State Penitentiary, 786 F.2d 710, 711 (5th Cir. 1986); Miller v. Solem, 758 F.2d 144, 145 (8th Cir. 1985). Once raised, the burden falls on petitioner to prove that he has not abused the writ. Miller, 758 F.2d at 145; see Price, 334 U.S. at 292, 68 S.Ct. at 1063. For the petitioner to meet this burden, however, he must be provided with both notice that the district court is considering dismissal on abuse of the writ grounds and a reasonable opportunity to respond. Manning, 786 F.2d at 711; Miller, 758 F.2d at 145, Robinson v. Fairman, 704 F.2d 368, 370 (7th Cir. 1983); Johnson v. Copinger, 420 F.2d 395, 399 (4th Cir. 1969); see Price, 334 U.S. at 292-93, 68 S.Ct. at 1063-64; Potts v. Zant, 638 F.2d 727, 747-48 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 877, 102 S.Ct. 357, 70 L.Ed.2d 187 (1981); Advisory Committee Note to Rule 9.

Consequently, a district court may not dismiss a petition sua sponte pursuant to Rule 9(b) without first providing the petitioner both with specific notice that dismissal pursuant to Rule 9(b) is contemplated and with a reasonable opportunity to prove that he has not abused the writ. See Potts, 638 F.2d at 747-48; Manning, 786 F.2d at 711; Miller, 758 F.2d at 145; Robinson, 704 F.2d at 370-71; cf. Hill v. Linahan, 697 F.2d 1032, 1034 (11th Cir. 1983) (petitioner entitled both to notice that the state's request for a Rule 9(a) dismissal would be treated as a motion for summary judgment and to an opportunity to respond). Because here the district court provided petitioner with neither, we reverse.

II.

Turning to claim (1), we conclude that this claim should have been dismissed, although not for the reasons cited by the district court. Instead, we conclude that the claim should have been dismissed as insufficient pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Neither the state court's failure to hold a hearing on petitioner's 3.850 motion nor its failure to attach the relevant portions of the record in any way undermines the validity of petitioner's conviction. Because claim (1) goes to issues unrelated to the cause of petitioner's detention, it does not state a basis for habeas relief. See Tijerina v. Estelle, 692 F.2d 3, 5-6 n. 1 (5th Cir. 1982); Pierre v. United States, 525 F.2d 933, 935-36 (5th Cir. 1976).

The Eleventh Circuit, in the en banc decision Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981), adopted as precedent decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 1981.

III.

In sum, the district court is AFFIRMED as to claim (1) and REVERSED as to claims (2) and (3). The case is REMANDED to the district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.


Summaries of

Spradley v. Dugger

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Aug 31, 1987
825 F.2d 1566 (11th Cir. 1987)

holding that habeas petitioner's claim that errors in Rule 3.850 proceeding violated his right to due process did not state a basis for habeas relief because the claim "[went] to issues unrelated to the cause of petitioner's detention."

Summary of this case from Blanton v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.

holding that the state trial court's alleged errors in the Rule 3.850 proceedings did not undermine the validity of the petitioner's conviction; therefore, the claim went to issues unrelated to the cause of the petitioner's detention and did not state a basis for habeas relief

Summary of this case from Jackson v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.

holding that habeas petitioner's claim that errors in Rule 3.850 proceeding violated his right to due process did not state a basis for habeas relief because the claim "[went] to issues unrelated to the cause of petitioner's detention"

Summary of this case from Davis v. Fla. Dep't of Corr. Sec'y

holding that habeas petitioner's claim that errors in Rule 3.850 proceeding violated his right to due process did not state a basis for habeas relief because the claim "[went] to issues unrelated to the cause of petitioner's detention"

Summary of this case from Miller v. Sec'y

holding that the state trial court's alleged errors in the Rule 3.850 proceedings did not undermine the validity of the petitioner's conviction; therefore, the claim went to issues unrelated to the cause of the petitioner's detention and did not state a basis for habeas relief

Summary of this case from Wood v. Sec'y

holding that habeas petitioner's claim that errors in his Rule 3.850 proceeding violated his due process rights did not state basis for habeas relief because the claim "[went] to issues unrelated to the cause of petitioner's detention"

Summary of this case from Dickey v. Jones

holding that habeas petitioner's claim that errors in Rule 3.850 proceeding violated his right to due process did not state a basis for habeas relief because the claim "[went] to issues unrelated to the cause of petitioner's detention."

Summary of this case from Ulland v. Comerford

holding that the state trial court's alleged errors in the Rule 3.850 proceedings did not undermine the validity of the petitioner's conviction; therefore, the claim went to issues unrelated to the cause of the petitioner's detention and did not state a basis for habeas relief

Summary of this case from Jackson v. Sec'y

holding that claim premised on alleged errors by state habeas court "[went] to issues unrelated to the cause of petitioner's detention," and thus "[did] not state a basis for habeas relief"

Summary of this case from Brinson v. Bryson

holding that habeas petitioner's claim that errors in Rule 3.850 proceeding violated his right to due process did not state a basis for habeas relief because the claim "[went] to issues unrelated to the cause of petitioner's detention."

Summary of this case from Solis v. Jones

holding that habeas petitioner's claim that errors in Rule 3.850 proceeding violated his right to due process did not state a basis for habeas relief because the claim "[went] to issues unrelated to the cause of petitioner's detention."

Summary of this case from Esty v. Jones

holding that habeas petitioner's claim that errors in Rule 3.850 proceeding violated his right to due process did not state a basis for habeas relief because the claim "[went] to issues unrelated to the cause of petitioner's detention."

Summary of this case from Smith v. Jones

holding that a habeas petitioner's claim that errors in collateral proceedings violated his right to due process did not state a basis for habeas relief, because the claim "addressed issues unrelated to the cause of the petitioner's detention"

Summary of this case from James v. Culliver

holding that, when a petitioner's claim goes to issues unrelated to the cause of petitioner's detention, that claim does not state a basis for habeas relief

Summary of this case from James v. Culliver

holding that habeas petitioner's claim that errors in Rule 3.850 proceeding violated his right to due process did not state a basis for habeas relief because the claim "[went] to issues unrelated to the cause of petitioner's detention"

Summary of this case from Herron v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.

holding that state court's failure to conduct evidentiary hearing on Rule 3.850 motion or attach relevant portions of record cannot form basis for habeas relief because any such error does not "undermine[] the validity of petitioner's conviction" and is "unrelated to the cause of petitioner's detention"

Summary of this case from Brooks v. Crews

holding that habeas petitioner's claim that errors in Rule 3.850 proceeding violated his right to due process did not state a basis for habeas relief because the claim "[went] to issues unrelated to the cause of petitioner's detention"

Summary of this case from Edmunds v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.

holding that habeas corpus relief is not available to correct alleged errors in state habeas proceedings

Summary of this case from Rufus v. Chapman

holding that habeas petitioner's claim that errors in Rule 3.850 proceeding violated his right to due process did not state a basis for habeas relief because the claim "[went] to issues unrelated to the cause of petitioner's detention."

Summary of this case from Cowan v. Sec'y

holding that habeas petitioner's claim that errors in Rule 3.850 proceeding violated his right to due process did not state a basis for habeas relief because the claim "[went] to issues unrelated to the cause of petitioner's detention."

Summary of this case from Taylor v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

holding that habeas petitioner's claim that errors in Rule 3.850 proceeding violated his right to due process did not state a basis for habeas relief because the claim "[went] to issues unrelated to the cause of petitioner's detention."

Summary of this case from Harter v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

holding that while 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

Summary of this case from Beier v. Butler

finding that claims unrelated to the cause of detention do not state a basis for federal habeas relief

Summary of this case from RAU v. SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS

concluding § 2254 claim that petitioner's due process rights were violated when state post-conviction court held no evidentiary hearing and failed to attach appropriate portions of record to its opinion "goes to issues unrelated to the cause of petitioner's detention does not state a basis for habeas relief"

Summary of this case from Kenley v. Bowersox

concluding that petitioner could not challenge the state court's failure to hold a hearing on another collateral motion nor its failure to attach the relevant portions of the record because those issues do not undermine the validity of the petitioner's conviction and thus did not state a §2254 claim for habeas relief

Summary of this case from Stone v. United States
Case details for

Spradley v. Dugger

Case Details

Full title:GLENN LAMAR SPRADLEY, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. RICHARD L. DUGGER, ROBERT…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Date published: Aug 31, 1987

Citations

825 F.2d 1566 (11th Cir. 1987)

Citing Cases

Dickey v. Jones

Carroll v. Sec'y, DOC, 574 F.3d 1354, 1365 (11th Cir. 2009). See, e.g., Anderson v. Sec'y for Dep't of Corr.,…

Carroll v. Secretary

Carroll also insinuates federal law ( i.e., Atkins itself), in addition to Florida law, mandated that the…