Case ID: f-appx_260/html/0252-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Paul A. WEIDNER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of FLORIDA, Secretary for the Department of Corrections, James McDonough, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 07-10611
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Jan. 3, 2008.
    Paul A. Weidner, Indiantown, FL, pro se.
    Heidi L. Bettendorf, Office of the Attorney General, West Palm Beach, FL, for Respondents-Appellees.
    Before DUBINA, BLACK and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Petitioner Paul A. Weidner, a Florida state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal of his federal habeas corpus petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court dismissed Weidner’s petition as time-barred, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A), but then granted a certificate of appealability (“COA”) as to the underlying constitutional claims raised in the petition.

A federal habeas petitioner must obtain a COA from the district court to appeal the denial of his § 2254 habeas petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). However, “[w]hen a district court dismisses a petition as time-barred, it is inappropriate to grant a COA on the [underlying] constitutional claim.” Ross v. Moore, 246 F.3d 1299, 1300 (11th Cir.2001). As a result, in Ross we vacated the order granting a COA and remanded to the district court “for the limited purpose of considering whether a COA should be granted on the question of whether appellant’s habeas petition is time-barred.” Id.

Here, the facts are identical to Ross. As a result, we vacate the order granting a COA and remand this case to the district court for the limited purpose of considering whether a COA should be granted on the question of whether Weidner’s § 2254 petition is time-barred.

VACATED AND REMANDED.