[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-15740

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 6:14-cv-00966-PGB-GJK

JOSEPH SCOTT FREEMAN, 

 Petitioner-Appellant,

 versus

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, 

 Respondents-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(March 3, 2017)

Before HULL, JORDAN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 15-15740 Date Filed: 03/03/2017 Page: 1 of 4 
2

Joseph Freeman, a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, challenges the district 

court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as time-barred after the 

court determined that Freeman was not entitled to equitable tolling. A certificate 

of appealability (“COA”) was granted on the issue of:

Whether, in dismissing Freeman’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ 

of habeas corpus as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), the 

district court erred in determining that Freeman was not entitled to 

equitable tolling, in light of Thomas v. Att’y Gen., Fla., 795 F.3d 

1286, 1293 (11th Cir. 2015)

On appeal, Freeman argues only the merits of his § 2254 petition. 

We review de novo the district court’s denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition 

as untimely. Hepburn v. Moore, 215 F.3d 1208, 1209 (11th Cir. 2000). We also 

review de novo the district court’s application of equitable tolling law to the facts. 

Cadet v. Fla. Dep’t of Corrs., 742 F.3d 473, 477 (11th Cir. 2014). 

We liberally construe pro se briefs. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 

(11th Cir. 2008). However, in liberally construing a litigant’s arguments, we will 

not act as de facto counsel. GJR Invs., Inc. v. County of Escambia, 132 F.3d 1359, 

1369 (11th Cir. 1998), overruled on other grounds as recognized by Randall v. 

Scott, 610 F.3d 701 (11th Cir. 2010). Therefore, arguments not raised on appeal, 

even by pro se litigants, are deemed abandoned. Timson, 518 F.3d at 874; see also 

Atkins v. Singletary, 965 F.2d 952, 955 n.1 (11th Cir. 1992) (concluding that an 

appellant abandons an issue not addressed on appeal). The mere mention in an 

Case: 15-15740 Date Filed: 03/03/2017 Page: 2 of 4 
3

appellate brief that the district court was in error, absent any specific argument as 

to how the court was in error, is insufficient to raise the issue on appeal. See 

Greenbriar, Ltd. v. City of Alabaster, 881 F.2d 1570, 1573 n.6 (11th Cir. 1989) 

(determining that an appellant abandoned a claim where it referred to an issue in its 

statement of the case, but elaborated no arguments on the merits of the issue in its 

brief).

The right to appeal the denial of a § 2254 petition is governed by 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c). Bell v. Att’y Gen. of Fla., 614 F.3d 1230, 1231 (11th Cir. 2010). 

Section 2253(c) requires a petitioner to obtain a COA by making a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right, and the COA indicates which 

specific issue justifies appellate review. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). If we have not 

expanded a COA to include a claim made in a brief, we will not consider the claim. 

Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1290 n.4 (11th Cir. 2009).

Even liberally construing his brief, Freeman abandoned the only issue 

included in the COA: whether the district court erred in determining that Freeman 

was not entitled to equitable tolling in light of the standard in Thomas. See 

Timson, 518 F.3d at 874. The argument portion of Freeman’s brief centers on the 

merits of the two claims he sought to raise in his § 2254 petition, and contains no 

mention of the district court’s determination that he should not receive equitable 

tolling. The only reference in Freeman’s brief to equitable tolling occurs when he 

Case: 15-15740 Date Filed: 03/03/2017 Page: 3 of 4 
4

discusses this Court’s COA in his procedural history. In that section, he notes that 

we granted a COA, and then, in a footnote, restates the COA in the form of a 

declarative statement instead of a question. Freeman does nothing to further 

develop his argument, address the holding in Thomas, or assert that he is, in fact, 

entitled to equitable tolling. Accordingly, he has abandoned this issue on appeal. 

See Greenbriar, 881 F.2d at 1573 n.6. Moreover, we will not address the 

arguments that Freeman does raise regarding the merits of his § 2254 petition, 

because they fall outside the scope of the COA and we did not expand the COA to 

include the issues. See Williams, 557 F.3d at 1290 n.4. Accordingly, we affirm 

the district court’s denial of Freeman’s § 2254 petition.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 15-15740 Date Filed: 03/03/2017 Page: 4 of 4