FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ULY 10, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 12 01 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 5 :0 8- cv -0 01 06 -WT H-KRS

FULGENCIO DELE ON, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Peti ti on er - Ap pe ll an t,
vers us SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CORREC TIONS, ATTORNEY G ENERAL, STAT E OF FLORIDA, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Res po nd en ts - App el le es .

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

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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J ul y 10 , 20 12 ) Befo re MAR TIN, JORDAN an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Fu lg en ci o DeLe on , a Flo rid a st at e p ris on er p ro ceed in g p ro se, app eal s t hedi st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 fed eral habe as pe ti ti on . W e g ran te d

a certi fic at e o f ap pe al ab il it y on whet he r th e d is tri ctco urt v io la te d C li sb y v. J on es , 96 0 F .2d92 5 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 2) (enba nc ), whe n i t fa il edto ad dr es s DeLeo n’s cl ai m th athi s p le a o f gu il ty w as in va li d b ecau se he en te redin to itin vo lu nt ari ly and
un kn owi ng ly. Afte r car efu l re vi ew, we va cat e an d re m an d. InCli sb y , we “ ex pr es s[ ed ] ou r de ep co nc ern ov er t he pi ecemeal l it ig at io n o f fed eral habe as pe ti ti on s fi le d b y st at e p ris on ers .” Id . at 9 35 . Exerc is in g o ur
supe rv is ory

po wer, we in st ru ct eddi stric t co urts to “ res ol ve all cla im s fo r rel ie f rai se d i n a[Sec ti on 22 54 ] pe ti ti on . . . reg ard le ss [of ] whe th er h ab eas rel ie f is gr an te d o r de ni ed .” Id . at 9 36 . A clai m forrel ie f, we ex pl ai ne d, i s “ an y all eg at io n of a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n.” Id. We m ad e itcle ar tha t we “ wil l v acat e th e di st ric t co urt’s jud gm en t wi th ou t p reju di ce an d re m an d the cas e fo r co ns id erat io n of all rem ai ni ng cla im s wh en ev er t he di st ric t co urt h as no t re so lv edall su ch cl ai m s.” Id . at 9 38
. Here, DeLeo n ra is edfiv e g ro un ds forrel ie f in hi s Se ct io n 2 25 4 p et it io n, o ne of whi ch ass ert edth atDeLeo n d idno t kno win gl y or v ol un ta ril y

en te r in to th e gu il ty ple a. The d is tri ctco urt h el d t ha t DeLeo n h adsat is fie d t he ex haus ti on requi rem en t as to th is cla im , andin a fo ot no te , itackno wled ge d tha t i t ca n re ject a cl ai m on th e m eri ts , eve n i f a p et it io ne r ha s n otex haus te d acla im . Howev er, t he
2di st ric t co urt d idno t g o o n t o a dd res s t he m eri ts of t ha t cl ai m . The d is tri ctco urt

th us lef t u nr es ol ve d acla im

of aco ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n. Se e Bra ds ha w v. Stum pf , 54 5 U.S. 1 75 , 18 3, 1 25 S. Ct. 2 39 8, 2 40 5 (2 00 5) (no ti ng th ata pl ea “ is va li d o nl y if d on e v ol un ta ril y , kn owi ng ly, an d i nt el li ge nt ly”). The st at e p oi nt s o utth atDeLeo n d idno t as k t he di st ric t co urt t o re co ns id er it s o rd er d en y in g h is pe ti ti on . Thatfact , ho wev er, i s i rrel ev an t. In Cli sb y , th e pe ti ti on er fi le d am ot io n t o a lt er o r am en d ju dg m en t, b uthe di d n otaskth e d is tri ct
co urt t o a dd res s al l o f th e cl ai m s t ha t i t h adlef t u nr es ol ve d. Se e 9 60 F.2dat 9 35
. Non et he le ss , we rem an de d t he cas e to th e d is tri ctco ur t fo r co ns id erat io n o f al l o f th os e cl ai m s. Id . at 9 27 . The s ta te als o s ug ge st s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt’s fa il ur e to
res ol ve th e cl ai m

is “ ha rm le ss ” b ecau se , in an y ev en t, t he cla im

fai ls on th e m eri ts
oris pro cedur al ly defau lt ed . The ru le th atwe lai d o utin Cli sb y , ho wev er, i s n ot
subjec t t o h arm le ss erro r an al y si s. See id . at 9 38 (no ti ng th atwe wil l v acat e an d
rem an d “ whe ne ve r th e d is tri ctco ur t h as no t re so lv edall su ch cla im s” (em ph as is ad de d) ). Fo r th es e rea so ns , we vac at e th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco urt an d re m an d th e cas e fo r co ns id erat io n o f DeLeo n’s re m ai ni ng cla im forrel ie f. VACATED AND REMANDED.

3