[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 18-12613

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:18-cv-21599-CMA

OCTAVIO ARNULFO HERNANDEZ, 

 Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

 Respondent-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(May 24, 2019)

Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 18-12613 Date Filed: 05/24/2019 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Octavio Arnulfo Hernandez, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district 

court’s dismissal of his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a writ of habeas 

corpus. We granted a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to Hernandez on one 

issue: whether the district court erred in dismissing his petition as time-barred by 

relying on the state courts’ electronic dockets in determining the untimeliness of 

the petition. 

In an appeal brought by an unsuccessful habeas petitioner, the scope of our 

review is generally limited to the issues specified in the COA. Kuenzel v. Allen, 

488 F.3d 1341, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam); see also Williams v. McNeil, 

557 F.3d 1287, 1290 n.3 & n.4 (11th Cir. 2009). Although, in exceptional 

circumstances, we may sua sponte expand a COA, “an appellant granted a COA on 

one issue cannot simply brief other issues as he desires in an attempt to force both 

the Court and his opponent to address them.” Dell v. United States, 710 F.3d 1267, 

1272 (11th Cir. 2013). 

Petitions dismissed as time-barred are considered as dismissals with 

prejudice. See Jordan v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 485 F.3d 1351, 1353 (11th 

Cir. 2007). The time limits for filing a § 2254 petition are not jurisdictional. 

Holland v. Fla., 560 U.S. 631, 645 (2010). We “may sua sponte raise the issue of 

clerical errors in the judgment and remand with instructions that the district court 

correct the errors.” United States v. Massey, 443 F.3d 814, 822 (11th Cir. 2006).

Case: 18-12613 Date Filed: 05/24/2019 Page: 2 of 3 
3

Because Hernandez is an unsuccessful habeas petitioner, the scope of our 

review is generally limited to the issues specified in the COA. Kuenzel, 488 F.3d 

at 1343; Williams, 557 F.3d at 1290 n.3 & n.4. However, Hernandez has not 

addressed the issue of whether the district court erred by taking judicial notice of 

electronic state court dockets to determine the timeliness of his § 2254 petition, the 

sole issue for which he was granted a COA, and so he has abandoned any 

argument as to that issue. Jones, 436 F.3d at 1303. Instead, the arguments in his 

brief are outside the scope of the COA. Although we may, in certain exceptional

circumstances, expand a COA sua sponte, no such circumstances are present here 

that would justify our doing so. Dell, 710 F.3d at 1272. Accordingly, we affirm 

the district court’s dismissal of Hernandez’s § 2254 petition as time-barred. 

However, while the district court dismissed Hernandez’s § 2254 petition 

after determining that it was untimely, its dismissal states that it was “for lack of 

jurisdiction.” Given the district court’s analysis of the time bar issue and the fact 

that the statute of limitations is not a jurisdictional issue, see Holland, 560 U.S. at 

645, this appears to have been a clerical error. As a result, we sua sponte vacate in 

part the district court’s decision and remand for the district court to deny the 

petition with prejudice as time-barred. Massey, 443 F.3d at 822. 

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART

Case: 18-12613 Date Filed: 05/24/2019 Page: 3 of 3