### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Ma y 2 4, 2005 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1087 9 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 02-00087 -CV -1-D HB DAVID CARL MARSHALL, Pe tit ion er -Appe llant, ve rs us T O N Y H O W E RT O N , W ar de n, Respondent -Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt f or the So uth er n D istri ct of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ay 2 4, 200 5) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , CA RN E S an d M A RC U S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:Marsha ll also requests that we rule on numer ous issues not covere d by the COA, 1 and , in the a lte rn ativ e , th at hi s § 22 54 pe tit ion be he ld i n a

be y anc e so that he might r e tur n to state court a nd raise the rema ining c laims. These c laims were included in the § 2254 petition, and we declined to include them in the COA. We decline to c onsider them her e as w ell. See Murr ay v. United States, 145 F.3d 1249, 1250- 51 (11th Cir. 1998). 2 Da v i dCa rl Ma rs h al l , aGe o rg i a p ri s o n er , ap p ea l s p ro s e t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s de ni al of h is 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4 p et it io n t o v acat e, se t as id e, orco rrec t h is sen te nc e. W e issued an order granting a certif icate of a ppealability(“ COA ”) a s to one iss ue: whether the district court viol ated Clisby v. Jones, 960 F. 2d 92 5 (11th Cir. 1992 )( enbanc ), by

f ai lin g to a ddr es s M ar sha ll’ s c la im that the tw o a tto rn ey s w ho we re to have re presented him at trial, John Flemm ing and Maureen Floy d, w ere ine ff ec tiv e fo r w ith dr aw ing im m ed ia te ly be fo re tr ia l and c au sin g th e tr ia l c ouns el , Ang el a Mc Elro y , to be ap po in te d ju st fou r da y s b efo re t ria l. Mars ha ll ar gue s onappe al that F le m ing a nd F loy d r en de re d in ef fe ct ive assistance by

abandonin g him

and leaving him

to be represented by

a newattorney fo ur day s pr ior

to tr ia l, a nd tha t the ne wa tto rn ey did not have a de qua te ti m e to prepare the case such that he w as denied the right to cou nsel. Marshall argues that the dis tr ic t c ourt vi olate d C lis by by f ai lin g to a ddr es s hi s c la im that F le m ing a nd Floy d wer e ineffe ctive. 1 A district court' s denial of habeas corpus relief is r eviewe d de novo . See By rd v. H as ty , 142 F . 3d 1 395, 139 6 ( 11th C ir . 1998 ). T he dis tr ic t c ourt m ust3

ad dr es s and r es olv e al l c onst itu tio na l c la im s r ai se d by aha be as pe tit ion er

a nd fa i l u re t o d o s o re qu i re s re m an dfo r t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt t o co n s i d erth e p et i t i o n er ’s cl ai m (s ) in the f

ir st i nst an ce . W ee ks v . S ing le tary , 963 F . 2d 3 16, 320 -2 1 ( 11th Ci r. 199 2) ( co nsi de ri ng the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of ha be as r el ie f; r em an din g f

or co nsi de ratio n of

ac onst itu tio na l c la im

that the dis tr ic t c ourt ha d ig nor ed a nd f or consideration o f other constitutio nal claim s that the dist rict court had stated am big uous r ea sons f

or not c onsi de ri ng; hol din g th e dis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d a ddr es s the m er its of

a ll cl ai m s or

a rt ic ulate it s r ea son fo r not doi ng s o) ; C lis by

v. Jon es , 9 6 0 F. 2 d9 2 5 , 9 3 4 -3 6 (1 1 t h Ci r. 1 9 9 2 )( en b an c) (h o l d i n g th at d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s reser vation o f constituti onal claim s without addressin g or deciding th em required rem and for dispos ition of those claim s). In Clisby , the district court considered 19 c la im s, of

w hic h it dis pose d of

13, gr an te d 1, a nd r es er

ve d j udgm en t on5, leading us to rem and the case for the district court to cons ider the unresolved issues. Id. at 935. Where a district court has failed to resolve all claim s, it m ay wr eak “ havoc” on court sy stem s, so w e w ill rem and the m atter to the district court to co ns id er an y

un res ol ve d c la im s. Id . at 9 38 . H er e, the c ourt be lowpe rm itt ed Mars ha ll to am en d hi s pe tit ionto inc lud e the ine ff ec tiv e as sis tanc e cl ai m . H ow ev er , it did not a ddr es s th e cl ai m . T he hol din g inCl isb y

is cl ear that the dis tr ic t c ourt i s r equir ed to ex plo re the f

ac ts andMarsha ll’s motion for oral ar gument is denied. 2 4 m er its of e ac h of Mars ha ll’ s arg um en ts. B ec au se the dis tr ic t c ourt r ule d th at the pr es en t i ne ff

ec tiv e as sis tanc e of

c ouns el c la im

w oul d be c onsi de re d, a nd d id n ot la te r rec on si de r th is de ci si on , itwas b ou nd to ad dr es s t he cla im . There fo re, we va cate a nd r em an d f

or the li m ite d purp ose of

a llo w ing the dis tr ic t c ourt t o e xa m ine th e cl ai m on pro cedur al an d s ub st an ti ve gro un ds . Upo n re vi ew of

th e rec or d, an d u po n c on si de rat io n o f th e p art ie s’ bri efs , we c o n c l u d e th a tth e d i s t r i c tc o u rte rr e db y fa i l i n g t o a d d r e s s th e c l a i m. A c c o r d i n g l y, w e va cate a nd r em an d f

or f urthe r pr oc ee din gs c onsi ste nt w iththi s op ini on. VACATED AND REMANDED. 2