[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-12952

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

RONNIE MONTSDEOCA, 

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Respondent-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 9:20-cv-81958-DMM

____________________

USCA11 Case: 21-12952 Date Filed: 11/21/2022 Page: 1 of 5
2 Opinion of the Court 21-12952

Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Ronnie Montsdeoca, proceeding pro se, appeals the United 

States District Court for the Southern District of Florida’s denial of 

his motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In that motion, 

Montsdeoca argued that his counsel was ineffective on eight separate grounds. The eighth ground, which he added by a later 

amendment, alleged that his counsel abandoned his direct appeal.

In the instant appeal, Montsdeoca requests that this Court 

grant his § 2255 motion to vacate and dismiss his criminal indictment with prejudice. He largely argues the merits of his grounds 

for direct appeal, but he also notes that the District Court, in its 

order denying his motion to vacate, did not address his eighth 

ground for relief. We granted a certificate of appealability (“COA”) 

as to whether the District Court violated Clisby v. Jones by failing 

to address Montsdeoca’s eighth claim. 960 F.2d 925, 935-36, 938 

(11th Cir. 1992) (holding that, when a district court fails to resolve 

all claims for relief that a habeas petitioner raises, this Court will 

vacate the judgment and remand the case for consideration of all 

remaining claims).

On February 5, 2021, Montsdeoca filed a motion for leave to 

amend his complaint to add an eighth ground for relief. The District Court granted Montsdeoca’s motion on March 18. The District Court’s final order denying Montsdeoca’s § 2255 motion, 

USCA11 Case: 21-12952 Date Filed: 11/21/2022 Page: 2 of 5
21-12952 Opinion of the Court 3

however, refers only to Montsdeoca’s seven grounds for relief. Order Den. Mot. to Vacate, Doc. 40 at 1, 5.

When reviewing a district court’s denial of a § 2255 motion, 

we typically review findings of fact for clear error and questions of 

law de novo. Rhode v. United States, 583 F.3d 1289, 1290 (11th Cir. 

2009). The scope of review is limited to the issues specified in the 

COA. Id. at 1290-91.

We have held that district courts must resolve all claims for 

relief that a habeas petitioner raises, and when a district court fails 

to do so, we “will vacate the district court’s judgment without prejudice and remand the case for consideration of all remaining 

claims.” Clisby, 960 F.2d at 935–36, 938 (addressing a 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 petition); see also Rhode, 583 F.3d at 1291 (applying Clisby

in the § 2255 context). Allegations of distinct constitutional violations constitute separate claims for relief, “even if both allegations 

arise from the same alleged set of operative facts.” Clisby, 960 F.2d 

at 936. A district court violates Clisby when a petitioner asserts 

facts showing specific failures of counsel, and the district court addresses some, but not all, of the alleged failures. Rhode, 583 F.3d 

at 1291-92.

We liberally construe pro se filings, “including pro se applications for relief pursuant to § 2255.” Winthrop-Redin v. United 

States, 767 F.3d 1210, 1215 (11th Cir. 2014). Whether or not an appellant is pro se, he forfeits an issue on appeal by failing to address 

it in his opening brief. Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 

USCA11 Case: 21-12952 Date Filed: 11/21/2022 Page: 3 of 5
4 Opinion of the Court 21-12952

739 F.3d 678, 682-83 (11th Cir. 2014). However, we may review an 

issue sua sponte in extraordinary circumstances, including when:

(1) the issue involves a pure question of law and refusal to consider it would result in a miscarriage of 

justice; (2) the party lacked an opportunity to raise the 

issue at the district court level; (3) the interest of substantial justice is at stake; (4) the proper resolution is 

beyond any doubt; or (5) the issue presents significant 

questions of general impact or of great public concern.

United States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 872–73 (11th Cir.) (en 

banc) (addressing abandonment in a criminal matter), cert. denied, 

(U.S. Oct. 3, 2022) (No. 21-1468). In Campbell, we determined that 

the proper resolution of the issue was beyond any doubt because it 

had “all the findings of fact necessary to consider” the issue that the 

appellant failed to address in his opening brief, and the “purely legal 

conclusion jump[ed] off the page.” Id. at 875, 877.

Although Montsdeoca does not address specifically in his appellate brief whether the District Court violated Clisby, we review 

the issue sua sponte because the proper resolution is beyond any 

doubt. The Court’s order referred to Montsdeoca’s “seven 

grounds,” Order Den. Mot. to Vacate, Doc. 40 at 1, and his “seven 

claims.” Id. at 5. The order also enumerated each of the claims 

brought by Montsdeoca, and again only listed seven claims. 

USCA11 Case: 21-12952 Date Filed: 11/21/2022 Page: 4 of 5
21-12952 Opinion of the Court 5

Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs,1 we conclude that the District Court did not address Montsdeoca’s eighth 

ground for relief, and therefore, did not resolve all of his claims. 

We vacate the District Court’s judgment without prejudice and remand the case for consideration of Montsdeoca’s eighth ground for 

relief. 

VACATED and REMANDED. 

1 In its brief, the Government agrees that the District Court violated Clisby

when it failed to address Montsdeoca’s eighth claim and requests that this 

Court vacate the District Court’s judgment and remand the case for the purpose of allowing the District Court to address that claim. Appellee’s Br. at 4-

5.

USCA11 Case: 21-12952 Date Filed: 11/21/2022 Page: 5 of 5