F ILED U.S. CO URT OF AP P EALS ELEVENTH CI RCUIT Janua ry 7 , 201 0 JO HN LEY ACTING CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 0 7- 15 85 7

__ __ __ __ __ __ _ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 5- 00 48 7- CV-J -3 3- MCR MIC HAEL HITCHCOCK, Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CORREC TIONS, ATTORNEY G ENERAL STAT E OF FLORIDA, Res po nd en ts -Ap pe ll ees .

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ (J an ua ry 7, 2 01 0) Befo re MAR CUS an d HILL, Ci rcu itJu dg es , andVOORHEES,* Dis tri ctJu dg e.

______________________ *Honora ble Richard L .Voorhe es, United States District Judge f or the Western D istrict of North Carolina, sitting by designation.HILL, Circ ui t J ud ge :

Mi ch ael Hit ch co ckap pe al s t he di sm is sa l o f hi s p et it io n fo r habe as co rp us rel ie f, as se rti ng th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin ho ld in g c ert ai n o f hi s cl ai m s t o b e de fau lt edfro m

fed eral rev ie w. For t he fol lo win g re as on s, we ag ree. I. Mi ch ael Hit ch co ckwas c on vi ct edof s ex ua l b at te ry an d h is di rectap pe al was de ni ed . His c ou ns el edst at e h ab eas pe ti ti on , fil edpu rs ua ntto Ru le 3.8 50 , Fl or id a Ru le s o f Cri m in al Pro cedur e, as se rte d fi ve cla im s o f in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l, the fir stof wh ic h i nc lu de d t welv e sub- cl ai m s. Fol lo win g a n 1 ev id en ti ary he ari ng , th e st at e tr ia l co urt d en ie d re li ef. Hit ch co ck ’s cou ns el ap pe al edan d fi le d h is in it ia l b rie f in th e Fi rs t Di st ric t Co urt o f App eal s o f Fl or id a (the “ Fi rs t DCA”) . One m on th lat er, an d p rio r to th e St at e’s res po ns e, Hit ch co ckfil eda pr o s e m ot io n s tyled“ Reque stforStay of Pro ceed in gs an d Lea ve to Fil e Supp le m en t[a l] Ini ti al Bri ef” ( th e “ Supp le m en ta l Mo ti on ”) i n wh ic h h e as se rte d t he fol lo win g: hi s co un se l d idno t p ro vi de hi m with a co py of th e b rie f be fo re fi li ng it ; h is co un se l’s b rie f fai le d t o ra is e se ve ral of t he cl ai m s ra is edinth e 3 .85 0 m ot io n; he ha d d em an de d b y let te r th athi s co un se l fi le a supp le m en ta l b rie f as se rti ng all cla im s ra is edan d ru le d upo n i n the Ru le 3.8 50 There wer e ac tually

three 3.850 motions; the others we re a mended ve rsions. 1 2m ot io n; an d c ou ns el ha d re fu se d t o d o s o. Hi tc hc oc k’s m ot io n a do pt edby

refe ren ce h is Ru le 3.8 50 m ot io n a ndth e tr an sc rip t o f th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng he ld on th e m ot io n. Hi tc hc oc k’s m ot io n s ou gh t l eav e fro m th e Fl or id a Fi rs t DCA, whi chha d ju ris di ct io n o ve r hi s ap pe al , to eit he r fi le th e supp le m en ta l b rie f as se rti ng th e o m it te d c la im s pr o s e , or fo r anord er d ire ct in g h is co un se l t o d o s o. The Fir stDCA de ni edHit ch co ck ’s m ot io n, wi th ou t co m m en t ex cep t t o c it e to Dag os ti no v. St at e , 67 5 S o.2 d 1 94 (Fl a. 4 DCA 19 96 ), in whi ch th e Fo urth th DCA he ldth atitha d t he di sc ret io n i n a di re ct ap pe al to rejectanap pe ll an t’s pr o se fil in g wh enth e ap pe ll an t was rep res en te d b y co un se l. Subs eque nt ly, Hit ch co ck , pr o s e , fil edth e in st an t h ab eas pe ti ti on , inwhi ch he so ug htto rai se all th e 3 .85 0 c la im s t ha t t he st at e tr ia l co urt d en ie d, i nc lu di ng th os e h is 3.8 50 co un se l re fu se d t o app eal an d wh ic h t he Fir stDCA refu se d t o al lo w hi m

to ap pe al pr o s e . The d is tri ctco urt d is m is se d t he pe ti ti on with pr ejud ic e, ho ld in g, in te r a li a , th atth e 3 .85 0 c la im s t ha t Hi tc hc oc k’s co un se l h ad refu se d t o app eal ha d n otbe n e xh au st edinst at e co urt. Sin ce t ho se cla im s wo ul d 2 no w be p ro cedur al ly barre d i n s ta te co urt, the di st ric t co urt h el d t ha t t he y were de fau lt edfro m

fed eral habe as rev ie w.

The district cour

t considere d on the merits and de nied the cla ims that were r aised on 2 appea l by Hitchcoc k’s 3.850 counse l and denied by the Fir st DCA. 3Pu rs uantto 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 3( c), we g ran te d acert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y on th e fo ll owi ng is su e: Whe th er the di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly dis m is se d [Hi tc hc oc k’s cl ai m s] as pr oc edur al ly defau lt edforHit ch co ck ’s fai lu re t o fa irl y pre se ntth em in st at e co urt, wh ere Hi tc hc oc k ra is edth os e cl ai m s i n h is st at e h ab eas pe ti ti on , in st ru ct edco un se l t o app eal th e st at e tr ia l co urt’s d en ia l o f th os e cl ai m s, an d re qu es te d p erm is si onfro m th e st at e ap pe ll at e co urt to fil e a pr o s e supp le m en ta l b rie f rai si ng th e cl ai m s co un se l re fu se d to rai se in th e in it ia l b rie f. Se e Cl emmon s v. Del o , 12 4 F .3d94 4, 9 48 - 49 (8 Cir . 19 97 ). th 3 II. Whe re a s ta te habe as pe ti ti on er as se rts a cl ai m th atwas n otco ns id eredon it s m eri ts by the st at e co urt, ei th er o n d ire ctap pe al or o n c ol la te ral att ack , he h as no t ex haus te d t ha t cl ai m

as r equi redby 28 U.S.C. § 22 54 (b ) an d (c ). Ca st il le v. Peo pl es , 48 9 U.S. 3 46 , 35 1 (1 98 9) . Whe re an y furth er at te m

ptto ex haus t tha t cl ai m in st at e co urt wo ul d b e fu ti le be cau se a st at e ru le of p ro cedur e n ow b ars co ns id erat io n o f th atcla im , th e cl ai m is “pr oc edur al ly barre d” in st at e co urt an d m ay be “pr oc edur al ly defau lt ed ” in fed eral co urt. Co le man v. Th omp so n , 50 1 U.S. 72 2, 7 35 n.1 (19 91 ) (“ [I]f th e p et it io ne r fai le d t o e xh au stst at e rem ed ie s an d t he co urt t o wh ic h t he pe ti ti on er wo ul d b e requi redto pre se nthi s cl ai m s i n o rd er t o m eetth e ex haus ti onrequi rem en t wo ul d n ow fi ndth e cl ai m s p ro cedur al ly barre d . . We appointed counse l for the pur pose of or al ar gument. 3 4. th ere i s a p ro cedur al de fau ltforpu rp os es of f ed eral habe as . . .”). Clai m s as se rte d i n afed eral habe as pe ti ti on , bu t wh ic h a re p ro cedur al ly barre d i n s ta te co urt, ar e p recl ud edfro m fed eral rev ie w. Id. Not al l cl ai m s t ha t ar e p ro cedur al ly barre d i n s ta te co urt, h owe ve r, are pr ecl ud edfro m

fed eral rev ie w. In o rd er fo r a cl ai m to be pro cedur al ly defau lt edin fed eral co urt, the st at e co urt ru le of p ro cedur e b arri ng st at e co urt re vi ew m us t b e bo th “ in de pe nd en t o f th e fed eral qu es ti on an d a de qu at e to supp ort t he [st at e-co urt] jud gm en t.” Co ne v. Bell , 12 9 S . Ct. 1 76 9, 1 78 0 (2 00 9) (qu ot in g Co le man , 50 1 U.S. at 7 29 ); se e a ls o Ha rr is v. Reed , 48 9 U.S. 2 55 , 26 0 (1 98 9) . Furt he rm or e, th e in de pe nd en ce an d a de qu acy of th e st at e ru le of p ro cedur e th atba rs fed eral habe as rev ie w “ is it

se lf a fed eral qu es ti on .” Lee v . Kemn a, 53 4 U.S. 3 62 , 37 5 (2 00 2) (em ph as is ad de d) (qu ot in g Dou gl as v. Ala ba ma , 38 0 U.S. 4 15 , 42 2 (1 96 5) .

“ [F]ede ral habe as co urts m us t as cert ai n fo r th em se lv es if t he pe ti ti on er i s i n cu st od y pu rs ua ntto a st at e co urt ju dg m en t tha t re st s o n i nd ep en de ntan d a de qu at e st at e g ro un ds .” Co ne , 12 9 S . Ct. at17 80 (qu ot in g Co le man , 50 1 U.S. at73 6) . Inord er t o b e “ ad equa te ” to bar fed eral habe as rev ie w of acon st itut io na l cl ai m , th e st at e p ro cedur al rul e m us t b e “ firm ly establ is he d a ndreg ul arl y fo ll owe d.” Ja mes v. Ken tu cky , 46 6 U.S. 3 41 , 34 8- 49 (19 84 ); Pay ne v. All en , 53 9 F.3 d 1 29 7, 1 31 2- 13 (11 Cir . 20 08 ) . The s ta te ’s app li cat io n o f a p ro cedur al ba r th 5“ m

us t b e fai th fu ll y

an d re gu la rly app li ed , andm us t n otbe m an ife st ly unf ai r in it s tre at m en t o f a p et it io ne r’s fed eral co ns ti tu ti on al cla im .” Ca rd v. Dug ge r , 91 1 F .2d 14 94 , 15 16 -1 7 (1 1 Cir . 19 90 ) (ci ta ti on an d quo ta ti on om it te d) . The fai th fu l an d th reg ul ar ap pl ic at io n o f a fi rm ly establ is he d ru le pro vi de s t he du e p ro ces s n ot ic e ne ces sa ry forth e ap pl ic at io n o f th e ru le to bar fed eral rev ie w of acla im rai se d i n vi ol at io n o f th e ru le . Lee , 53 4 U.S. at38 9. Ord in ari ly, vi ol at io n o f su ch “ firm ly es tabl is he d a ndreg ul arl y fol lo wed ” st at e p ro cedur al rul es wil l b e ad equa te to fo recl os e rev ie w of t he fed eral cla im . Id. The Co urt h as in st ru ct edus to di sr eg ard , ho wev er, s ta te pro cedur es th atare ne it he r fi rm ly establ is he d n orreg ul arl y fol lo wed . In t wo ca se s, wh ere the rul e as se rte d t o b ar s ta te co urt re vi ew was no t co di fie d, t he Co urt re fu se d t o fi ndth e ru le ad equa te to bar fed eral rev ie w. Ja mes , 46 6 U.S. at35 1 (r ev ers in g d is m is sa l of cla im wher e b arre d b y

Kentuc ky case law ru le requi rin g re qu es t fo r

“ ad m on it io n” rathe r th an“ in st ru ct io n” ); NAACP v. Ala ba ma ex rel . Pat te rs on , 35 7 U.S. 44 9, 4 57 -5 8 (1 95 8) (rev ers in g d is m is sa l o f cl ai m ba rredby A laba m a cas e la w ru le requi rin g re vi ew by m an da m us rathe r th anth e reque st edcert io rari ). In Ja mes , th e ru le , was n ot“ cl ear,” 46 6 U.S. at34 6, an d i n Pat te rs on , th e “pe ti ti on er co ul d no t fa irl y be de em edto ha ve be enap pr is edof [ th e ru le ’s] ex is te nc e.” 3 57 U.S. at 45 7. 6Fu rth erm or e, th e Co urt h as in st ru ct edth ata ru le is no t “ reg ul arl y fol lo wed ” if i t i s n otco ns is te nt ly app li edan d e nf or ced . Jo hn so n v . Mis siss ip pi , 48 6 U.S. 57 8, 5 87 (19 88 ); se e a ls o Ma pl es v. All en , 58 6 F .3d87 9, 8 88 (11 Cir . 20 09 ). A th st at e ru le th atis ap pl ie d i n a n “ arb it rary or u np rece de nt edfas hi on ,” is no t ad equa te to ba r fed eral rev ie w. Ju dd v. Hal ey , 25 0 F .3d13 08 , 13 13 (11 Cir . 20 01 ). th Fi na ll y , th ere a re “ ex cep ti on al cas es in whi ch ex orbi tantap pl ic at io n o f a g en eral ly so un d ru le ren de rs th e st at e g ro un d i na de qu at e” t o b ar ad jud ic at io n o f th e fed eral cl ai m . Lee , 53 4 U.S. at37 6 (ci ti ng Dav is v. W ech sl er , 26 3 U.S. 2 2, 2 4 (1 92 3) ). The refu sa l o f th e Fi rs t DCA t o p erm itth e pr o s e fil in g o f Hit ch co ck ’s fed eral cla im s o m it te d b y co un se l fr om

hi s ap pe al of t he 3.8 50 m ot io n s at is fie s no ne of the requi rem en ts foran“ ad equa te ” o r “ in de pe nd en t” st at e g ro un d o f de ci si on . Firs t, atth e ti m e Hit ch co ckfil edhi s Supp le m en ta l M ot io n, t he re was no Fl or id a Ru le of Ap pe ll at e Pro cedur e, no publ is he d i nt ern al op erat in g p ro cedur e in th e Fi rs t DCA, an d n o p ub li sh eddi st ric t co urt o f ap pe al s o pi ni on forbi dd in g a pr o se br ie f in Hit ch co ck ’s cir cu m st an ces . The Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt h adno t pr om ul ga te d aFlo rid a Ru le of Ap pe ll at e Pro cedur e p ro hi bi ti ng or o th erwi se ad dr es si ng th e Fl or id a in te rm ed ia te ap pe ll at e co urts ’ co ns id erat io n o f pr o s e br ie fs

7fil edondi rector c ol la te ral ap pe al by pers on s re pr es en te d b y co un se l. Nor h ad

4 an y of t he Flo rid a d is tri ctco urts of app eal in cl ud edsu ch a ru le withi n t he ir publ is he d In te rn al Oper at in g P ro cedur es . Nor was th ere asi ng le publ is he d op in io n b y

a Fl or id a d is tri ctco urt d at in g p rio r to Marc h 2 00 4 (wh enHit ch co ck fil edhi s m ot io n i n t he st at e co urt) i n wh ic h aFlo rid a d is tri ctco urt d en ie d am ot io n fo r le av e to fil e a pr o s e br ie f fi le d b y anap pe ll an t wi th co un se l i n apo st co nv ic ti on ap pe al . The Fir stDCA’ s ci ta ti onof Dag os ti no is no t t o t he co ntrary. In Dag os ti no , th e Fo urthDCA he ldon ly tha t i t h addi sc ret io n t o re ject a pr o s e pl ead in g fi le d i n a di re ct ap pe al whe re ap pe ll an t was rep res en te d b y co un se l. 6 75 So . 2dat 1 95 . In W hi tf ie ld v. St at e , 51 7 S o. 2 d 2 3, 2 3- 24 (Fl a. 1 DCA 19 87 ), th e Fi rs t DCA i ts el f s t reco gn iz edth atsu ch anap pe ll an t wo ul d n otbe de ni edth e o pp ortu ni ty to as se rt h is in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m s b ecau se he co ul d d o s o l at er i n a3.8 50 m ot io n. Th e Fl or id a co urt s ai d t ha t “ [i]f th e is su e is vi ab le , app el la nt ’s rem edy , as he reco gn iz es in hi s m ot io n, l ie s i n c ol la te ral pro ceed in gs , all eg in g i ne ffec ti ve as si st an ce o f ap pe ll at e co un se l.” Id . The Fir stDCA’ s ci ta ti on to Dag os ti no , th en , In Davis v. State , 789 So. 2d 978, 981(Fla. 2001) , the Flor ida Supreme Court a dopted a 4 rule that it would ac cept pro se briefs submitted by persons with counse l only under c erta in limit ed cir cumstance s. The rule , howeve r, expressly was not applied to the district c ourts of appea l. The F lorida Supreme Court noted that all Florida a ppellate c ourts had discre tion to deter mine whether

they would acc ept pro se briefs. Id.

8di d n otap pl y a fi rm ly establ is he d ru le pro hi bi ti ng pr o s e bri efs by cou ns el ed ap pe ll an ts in Flo rid a 3 .85 0 p ro ceed in gs . Nor, o f co ur se , was i t ev enbi nd in g o n th e Fi rs t DCA, wh ic h d en ie d Hi tc hc oc k’s m ot io n. Wha t was bi nd in g o n t he di st ric t co urt, h owe ve r, is th e Fi fth Cir cu it ’s ho ld in g i n McBri de v. Est el le , 50 7 F .2d90 3, 9 04 (5 Cir . 19 75 ), th ata pe ti ti on er’s th fil in g o f a s up pl em en ta l pr o s e br ie f in ad di ti on to th e b rie f fi le d b y co un se l was pr es en ta ti on en ou gh to sat is fy th e juri sd ic ti on al requi rem en ts of § 22 54 . In 5 McBri de , th e Fi fth Cir cu ithe ldth atsubm is si on of a pr o s e bri ef b y th e p et it io ne r in th e st at e co urt “ supp le m en ta l t o o ne fil edby cou ns el ” was “ ‘pres en ta ti on ’ . . . . en ou gh to sat is fy

th e juri sd ic ti on al requi rem en ts of § 22 54 .” Id. at90 4 (a ffi rm in g di sm is sa l o n o th er g ro un ds ). Se e a ls o K if er v. Uchtman , 16 5 F ed . App x. 4 65 , 46 7- 69 (7 Cir . 20 06 ) (

pr o s e m ot io n t o s up pl em en t qua li fie s as fai rly pres en ti ng cla im th an d “ th is de te rm in at io n i s co ns is te ntwith t he de ci si on of e ve ry co urt o f ap pe al s t o ad dr es s s im il ar ci rcu m st an ces ”); Dor se y v. Kel ly , 11 2 F .3d50 , 52 (2dCir . 19 97 ) (“ A pet it io ne r m ay

sat is fy th e ex haus ti on requi rem en t b y pre se nt in g h is fed eral cl ai m in a pr o s e supp le m en ta l b rie f, ev enif h e h as anatt orne y ”). The Sta te cit es ab so lu te ly no au th or ity forit s re pe at edass ert io n t ha t t he Fi rs t DCA h as a ru le pro hi bi ti ng th e fi li ng of pr o s e br ie fs an d c on si de rat io n o f The State a cknowledg es, but does not discuss, this binding pre cede nt. 5 9th em

on th e m eri ts . The o nl y

Flo rid a cas es cit edin it s b rie f, atall , are Dag os ti no , whi chis a Fo urthDCA cas e, an d Dav is , a Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt ca se , whi ch Hit ch co ck

co nc ed es ha s s uc h arul e. Every ot he r cas e in it s b rie f is fro m a fed eral ci rcu itco urt o f ap pe al s. Ev enif afed eral cas e co ul d e st ab li sh th atFlo rid a h as su ch a fi rm ly establ is he d a ndreg ul arl y fol lo wedrul e –

whi ch itco ul d n ot– m os t of th e cas es are fr om

ot he r ci rcu it s. Fu rth erm or e, as su m in g ar gu en do th at Dag os ti no di d app ly a “ ru le ” b arri ng pr o s e br ie fs in co un se le d app eal s, s uc h arul e h adno t b een “ reg ul arl y fol lo wed ” by the Flo rid a d is tri ctco urts of app eal s p rio r to Marc h 2 00 4, ev enin di rect ap pe al s. Se e , e.g. , Eri cks on v. St at e , 56 5 S o. 2 d 3 28 , 33 4- 37 (Fl a. 4 DCA 19 90 ) th (rev ers in g l owe r co urt o n b as is of i ss ue rai se d i n “ pr o s e supp le m en ta l b rie f” b ut no t ra is edin ap pe ll an t’s co un se l’s b rie f); Bar clay v. Si ng le ta ry , 64 2 S o. 2 d 5 83 , 58 5- 86 (Fl a. 3dDCA 19 94 ) (h ol di ng ba rredon m ot io n fo r po st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f cl ai m s ra is edinpri or pr o s e br ie f fi le d o n d ire ctap pe al whi le rep res en te d b y co un se l). 6 Fu rth erm or e, inth e cas e ci te d t o u s b y th e p an el th atgra nt edth e certi fic at e We do not impl y

that a DCA’s f

irmly established rule that it has the discretion to rejec t 6 pro sepleading s from counse led petitioners would not be a n adequate state ground to bar f eder al revie w. See B eard v. Kindler , 130 S. Ct . 612, 618 (2009). He re the re w as no First DCA rule , and the F ourth DCA’s rule prohibited such brief s, but was not consistently applied by

Florida ’s intermediate appellate courts, eve n in the Four th District. 10of

ap pe al ab il it y , th e Eig hth C irc ui t, o n fa ct s v irtua ll y id en ti cal to th os e in th is cas e, he ldth ata pe ti ti on er’s fed eral habe as pe ti ti on cla im was n otpro cedur al ly ba rredev enth ou gh th atcla im ha d b een rai se d o nl y

in a pr o s e br ie f th atth e Mi ss ou ri S up rem e Co urt re fu se d t o a ccep t o n t he gro un ds th athe was re pr es en te d by cou ns el . Cl emmon s v. Del o , 12 4 F .3d94 4, 9 47 (8 Cir . 19 97 ). In r ev ers in g t he th di st ric t co urt o n t hi s i ss ue , th e co urt s ai d: No ru le of c ou rt o r rep orte d M is so ur i ca se of wh ic h we are awar e sp eci fie s t he cir cu m st an ces un de r whi ch Mi ss ou ri app el la te co urts al lo w pro se b rie fs . A sta te pro cedur al rul e m us t b e reg ul arl y

adhe red to if i t i s t o b e an ad equa te st at e g ro un d s up po rti ng a pr oc edur al ba r. So m et im es Mi ss ou ri c ou rts all ow p ro se b rie fs , andso m et im es th ey do no t. Tha t i s t he ir p rero ga ti ve . Butin th e ab se nc e o f reg ul arl y ap pl ie d c rit eri a, th e d eci si on no t t o a ll ow s uc h abri ef ca nn otbe sai d to res t o n areg ul arl y

ap pl ie d ru le of s ta te pro cedur al law. Id. at94 8 n .3 (i nt ern al cit at io n o m it te d) . Ina si m il ar 2 00 6 c as e, th e Eig ht h C irc ui t re ve rs edan ot he r di st ric t co urt’s fin di ng of p ro cedur al de fau lt , fin di ng th at“ th e st at e h as no t d em on strat edth at si nc e o urde ci si onin Cl emmon s th e Mi ss ou ri S up rem e Co urt h as pro vi de d acle ar an d a sc ert ai nabl e ru le .” W in fi eld v . Rop er , 46 0 F .3d10 26 , 10 36 -3 7 (8 Cir . th 20 06 ). The co urt u rg edth e Mi ss ou ri S up rem e Co urt t o fo rm al ly cod ify a rul e reg ard in g pr o s e bri efs fro m co un se le d app el la nt s. Id. at 1 03 7 n .5. The Eig ht h C irc ui t l at er d is ti ng ui sh ed Cl emmon s in up ho ld in g adi st ric t

11co urt fi nd in g o f pr oc edur al de fau ltbas edon a pr o s e fil in g i n aMi ss ou ri app el la te

co urt, b ecau se , un li ke th e Mi ss ou ri S up rem e Co urt, the in te rm ed ia te Mi ss ou ri ap pe ll at e co urts di d ha ve publ is he d ru le s p ro hi bi ti ng th e fi li ng of pr o s e br ie fs by co un se le d app el la nt s. Se e Hal l v. Lu eb be rs , 29 6 F .3d68 5, 6 95 (8 Cir . 20 02 ). th Fi na ll y , eve n i f th ere wer e a Fl or id a DCA ru le pro hi bi ti ng pr o s e br ie fs by co un se le d p et it io ne rs , it s ap pl ic at io n o n t he fact s o f th is cas e wou ldbe

“ ex orbi ta nt ,” se e Lee , 53 4 U.S. at37 6, an d p oi nt le ss ly sev ere. Se e NAACP v. Ala ba ma ex rel . Flo wer

s , 37 7 U.S. 2 88 , 29 7 (1 96 4) . Hitc hc oc k d idev erythi ng he co ul d t o e xh au sthi s fe de ral cla im s i n t he st at e co urts . Reject io n o f th em no w wou ldworkanin

jus ti ce. III. No DCA h ada ru le pro hi bi ti ng pr o s e br ie fs by cou ns el edap pe ll an ts at t he ti m e Hit ch co ck

fil edhi s m ot io n. Th e Fi rs t DCA d idno t ci te bi nd in g aut ho rit y for it s re jecti on of h is m ot io n. In li gh t o f th e fai lu re o f th e Fl or id a co urts of app eal s t o ha ve a fi rm ly establ is he d a ndreg ul arl y ap pl ie d ru le pro hi bi ti ng su ch bri efs at t he ti m e Hit ch co ck

fil edhi s s up pl em en ta l m ot io n, we h ol d t ha t the Flo rid a jud gm en t di sm is si ng th e 3 .85 0 c la im s d oe s n otres t o n a n a de qu at e st at e ru le of d eci si on an d th at , th eref

or e, Hit ch co ck ’s fed eral cla im s ar e n otba rredfro m ou r rev ie w. REVERSED AND REMANDED for fu rth er p ro ceed in gs no t i nc on si st en t wit h t he op in io n. 12