FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 22, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 11 40 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 5 :0 7- cv -0 01 63 -WT H-GRJ DARRYL MAURIC E YOUNG , Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, FLORIDA ATTORNEY G ENERAL, Res po nd en ts -Ap pe ll ees .

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

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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ma rch 22 , 20 11 ) Befo re EDMONDSON, W ILSON an d P RYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Darryl Mau ric e You ng , app eari ng pr o s e , app eal s the di st ric t co urt’s d en ia lof

hi s 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 habe as pe ti ti on .

“ The di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o r de ni al of h ab eas co rp us rel ie f is rev ie wed de
no vo ,” whi le th e co urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs are re vi ewedforcle ar erro r. Si ms v. Si ng le ta ry , 15 5 F .3d12 97 , 13 04 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). Befo re we re vi ew a d is tri ct
co urt’s d en ia l o f a s ect io n 2 25 4 p et it io n, t he pe ti ti on er m us t o bt ai n acert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il ity

by m ak in g a“ subs ta nt ia l s ho win g o f th e d en ia l o f a co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht .” 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 3( c)(1 )– (2 ). The s co pe of o urrev ie w is li m it edto th e is su es sp eci fie d i n t he cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y . Mur ra y v. Uni te d Sta tes , 14 5 F.3 d 1 24 9, 1 25 0– 51 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ) (p er cu ria m ). On ap pe al , You ng ass ert s t ha t th e d is tri ctco urt erredby notpro vi di ng hi m anop po rtu ni ty for d is co ve ry or f oran ev id en ti ary he ari ng . Butwe gr an te d acert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y on ly to de te rm in e: [w]het he r th e d i stric t co urt vi ol at ed Cl is by v. Jo nes ,

96 0 F.2 d 92 5 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 92 ), b y fai li ng to ad dr es s You ng ’s cl ai m th at he was im pr op erl y tre at ed as in el ig ib le to earn ga in ti m e fo r si x m on th s fo ll owi ng hi s di sc ip li na ry i nf ract io n, pu rs ua nt to Fl a. Adm in
. Co de § 3 3
- 60 1.1 01 (6 )(a) (2 )– (3 ) (1 99 8)
. In Cl is by we ex erci se d o ursupe rv is ory po wer o ve r th e d is tri ctco urts an d in st ru ct edth em

“ to res ol ve all cla im s fo r rel ie f rai se d i n ape ti ti on forwritof habe as co rp us pu rs ua ntto [se ct io n 2 25 4], reg ard le ss whet he r habe as rel ie f is gr an te d o r de ni ed .” 96 0 F .2dat 9 36 . A “ cl ai m forrel ie f” i s “ an y

all eg at io n o f a 2co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n,” an d t wo s ep arat e al le ga ti on s o f a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n

“ co ns ti tu te two di st in ctcla im s fo r rel ie f, ev en if b ot h a ll eg at io ns ari se fro m th e sa m e al le ge d s etof o pe rat iv e fac ts .” Id . If a di st ric t co urt fa il s t o a dd res s al l o f th e cl ai m s i n ahabe as pe ti ti on , we “ va cat e th e d is tri ctco urt’s jud gm en t wi th ou t pr ejud ic e an d re m an d t he cas e fo r co ns id erat io n o f al l re m ai ni ng cla im s . . . .” Id
. at93 8. The di stric t co urt p ro pe rly addres se d Yo un g’s ar gu m en t t ha t h e was erro ne ou sl y

tre at edas i ne li gi bl e to earn ga in ti m e fo r si x m on th s fo ll owi ng hi s di sc ip li na ry

in frac ti on . Firs t, t he co urt re vi ewedan d uph el d the st at e co urt’s de ci si on , whi ch ad dr es se d t he is su e o f in el ig ib il ity to earn ga in ti m e. The s ta te
co urt h el d t ha t Yo un g fa il edto sh ow a v io la ti on of h is du e p ro ces s ri gh ts , andth e di st ric t co urt d et erm in edth atth is was n otanun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f fed eral la w. The di stric t co urt al so fou ndth atYou ng “ rece iv edth e d eg ree o f fai rn es s i n th e d is ci pl in ary pr oc eed in g t o wh ic h h e was en ti tl ed .” The c ou rt p ro pe rly
an al y zedYou ng ’s cla im

as adu e p ro ces s cl ai m , rathe r th an ass es si ng whet he r it
was pro pe r un de r st at e la w, bec au se on ly clai m s t ha t a p ers on ha s b een he ldin
cu st od y in vi ol at io n o f th e Co ns ti tu ti on or f ed eral law ar e co gn iz ab le in sec ti on 22 54 habe as pe ti ti on s. Se e 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( a). The co urt d idno t err un de r
3Cl is by , so th e d en ia l o f You ng ’s hab eas pe ti ti on is affi rm ed
.

AFFIRMED.

4