FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T APRI L 27, 201 0 J OHN LEY CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 13 41 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock et Nos . 08 -1 42 54 -CV-DLG,

07 -1 40 16 -DLG

JOSEP H CRUTCHLEY,

Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us
UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,

Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ap ril 27 , 20 10 )

Befo re TJ OFLAT, MARCUS an d WILSON, Circu it Ju dg es

. PER CURI AM:

Jo se ph Cru tc hl ey , a fed eral pri so ne r, ap pe al s t he di st ric t co ur t’s d en ia l o f hi s

pr o se m ot io n to va cat e fil ed pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 22 55

. W e gr an te d a cert ifi cat eof ap pe al ab il it y to de te rm in e “ [w]het he r, th e d is tri ct co ur t v io la te d C li sb y v. J on es , 96 0 F.2 d 92 5, 93 6 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 92 ) (en ba nc ) by fai li ng to ad dr es s Cru tc hl ey ’s cl ai m
th at co un se l was ine ffec ti ve fo r fai li ng to fil e a no ti ce of ap pe al .” Cru tc hl ey arg ue s

on ap pe a l th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s fai lu re to ad dr es s hi s cl ai m th at hi s co un se l was
in effe ct iv e fo r refu si ng to fil e a no ti ce of ap pe al on Cru tc hl ey ’s be ha lf co ns ti tu te d a

vi ol at io n of Cl is by’ s ru l e th at a di st ric t co ur t m us t ad dr es s al l cl ai m s, in cl ud in g
in effe ct iv e as si st an ce cl ai m s, se t fo rth in a § 22 55 m ot io n. Afte r care fu l rev ie w, we

va cat e an d re m an d. 1

W he n rev ie win g th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of a § 22 55 m ot io n, we rev ie w
fin di ng s of fact fo r cl ear erro r an d qu es ti on s of la w de no vo

. Ly nn v. Uni te d St at es , 36 5 F .3d 12 25 , 12 32 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ).
Exp res si ng ou r “ de ep co nc ern ov er th e pi ecemeal lit ig at io n of fede ral ha be as

pe ti ti on s,” in Cl is by we ex erci se d ou r su pe rv is or y au th or it y an d in st ru ct ed th e di st ric t

co ur ts to res ol ve al l cl ai m s fo r rel ie f rai se d in a pe ti ti on fo r ha be as co rp us , reg ard le ss
of whe th er ha be as rel ie f is gr an te d or de ni ed

. Cl is by, 96 0 F.2 d at 93 5- 36 (in vo lv in g

a 28 U.S.C. § 22 54 pe ti ti on fil ed by a st at e pr is on er); se e Rh od e v. Uni te d St at es , 58 3

F.3 d 12 89 , 12 91 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 09 ) (h ol di ng th at Cl is by ap pl ie s to § 22 55 m ot io ns ).

Howeve r, Appe llant’s motion, filed pursuant to Fe d.R.App.P. 23(a), in which he 1 reque sts to be transfe rre d to the custody of a f eder al prison within the territoria l jurisdiction of the Eleve nth Circuit Court of Appeals, is DENI ED.
2W he n a di st ric t co ur t fai ls to ad dr es s al l of th e cl ai m s pr es en te d in a ha be as pe ti ti on ,

we “ wil l va cat e th e di st ric t co ur t’s jud gm en t wit ho ut pr ejud ic e an d rem an d th e cas e
fo r co ns id erat io n o f al l re m ai ni ng cla im s.” C li sb y , 96 0 F .2d at 9 38

. A “ cl ai m fo r rel ie f” is de fin ed as “ an y al le ga ti on of a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n.”

Id

. at 93 6. In de te rm in in g whe th er a cl ai m was ad eq ua te ly rai se d, we ha ve he ld th at

“ [p ]ro se pl ead in gs are h el d to a le ss st rin ge nt st an da rd th an pl ead in gs dr aft ed by

at to rn ey s an d wil l, th eref

or e, be li be ral ly co ns tru ed .” Tan ne nb au m v. Uni te d St at es , 14 8 F.3d 12 62 , 12 63 (1 1t h Cir. 19 98 ). In effe ct iv e as si st an ce of cou ns el co ns ti tu te s

a vi ol at io n of a de fen da nt ’s Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht s, an d th us is a cl ai m of a

co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n. See St ric kl an d v. W as hi ng to n, 46 6 U.S. 66 8, 68 4- 96 (198 4)

. Und er th e le ss st rin ge nt st an da rd em pl oyed fo r pr o se li ti ga nt s, Cru tc hl ey

pr op erl y rai se d hi s cl ai m th at hi s co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r f a i l i n g to fil e a no ti ce
of ap pe al in hi s § 22 55 m ot io n, in hi s m em or an du m in su pp or t of th at m ot io n, an d in

rep ly to th e go ve rn m en t’s an swe r. See Tan ne nb au m , 14 8 F.3 d at 12 63

. Bec au se th e
di st ric t co ur t fai le d t o ad dr es s th is cl ai m , we va cat e th e di st ric t co ur t’s jud gm en t
wit ho ut pr ejud ic e, an d rem an d to th e di st ric t co ur t so le ly fo r co ns id erat io n of th at
cl ai m

. VACATED an d REMANDED.

3