F ILED U.S. CO URT OF AP P EALS ELEVENTH CI RCUIT SEP T. 8, 2 011 JO HN LEY CLERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 13 96 2

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 1- cv -2 30 68 -J EM MANUEL A. VALLE, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne r - App el lant , ve rs us SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 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 stric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 8, 2 01 1) Befo re CARNES, HULL andW ILSON, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Death ro w in m at e, Man ue l Val le , fil eda pe ti ti on fora writof h ab eas co rp us un de r 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4. He co m pl ai ns th athe was de ni edcle m en cy pro ceed in gsoralt ern at iv el y was d en ie d c le m en cy

it se lf wi th ou t the be ne fitof acle m en cy in ve st ig at io n andcle m en cy co un se l. Pet it io ns un de r § 2 25 4 c an no t b e b ro ug htto ch al le ng e th e p ro ces s b y whi ch cl em en cy de ci si on s ar e m ad e whe n i ss ua nc e o f a wri t wo ul d n otactua ll y or im pl ie dl y in va li da te a se nt en ce. Se e W ilki ns on v. Dot

so n , 54 4 U.S. 7 4, 8 1, 1 25 S.Ct . 12 42 , 12 47 –4 8 (2 00 5) (“ § 1 98 3 re m ai ns av ai labl e fo r pr oc edur al ch al le ng es whe re s uc ces s i n the act io n wo ul d n otne ces saril y sp el l i m m ed ia te or s pe ed ie r rel eas e fo r th e p ris on er”) ; Hut ch er so n v . Rile

y , 46 8 F .3d75 0, 7 54 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (rec og ni zi ng th at§ 1 98 3 and§ 2 25 4 p ro ceed in gs are “ m utua ll y ex cl us iv e” s o tha t if acla im canbe pro pe rly rais edinon e o f th os e p ro ceed in gs itcanno t b e rai se d i n th e o th er ty

pe of p ro ceed in g) . Fed eral habe as co rp us law ex is ts to pro vi de a pr is on er anav enue to att ackth e fac t o r du rat io n o f ph y si cal im pr is on m en t an d t o ob ta inimm ed ia te or s pe ed ie r rel eas e. Se e 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4; Preise r v. Ro dr ig ue z , 41 1 U.S. 4 75 , 48 5– 86 , 93 S. Ct. 1 82 7, 1 83 4 (1 97 3) (di sc us si ng th e tr ad it io na l sc op e o f habe as co rp us rel ie f). Eve n i f su cces sf ul , Vall e’s cl ai m

wou ldno t ne ces saril y

lea d t o h is sp eed ie r rel eas e, a co m m ut at io n o f hi s s en te nc e, orev enth e im pl ic at io n tha t h is sen te nc e is in va li d. Th e m os t Val le canho pe foris an op po rtu ni ty to p le adform ercy. Vall e’s co ns ti tu ti on al cla im s ab ou t cl em en cy pr oc edur es are co ll at eral to hi s co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e, an d are n otco gn iz ab le in 2th is § 2 25 4 p ro ceed in g. Hi s co m pl ai ntab ou t Fl or id a’s cl em en cy pro cedur es m ay on ly be b ro ug htun de r 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3. Vall e al so arg ue s tha t i f Fl or id a cl em en cy pro cedur es were i m

pr op erl y ap pl ie d i n h is cas e th e en ti re Fl or id a cap it al sen te nc in g s ch em e is un co ns ti tu ti on al an d, as a res ul t, h is de ath s en te nc e (al on g wi thth os e o f ev eryone els e o n F lo rid a’s de ath ro w) is un co ns ti tu ti on al an d m us t b e se t as id e. The arg um en t i s wi th ou t m eri t. Itis un di sp ut edth atFlo rid a la w pro vi de s cl em en cy pro ceed in gs an d fo r th e ap po in tm en t o f co un se l fo r th os e who are b ei ng co ns id eredfor cle m en cy . Any pr ob le m with the ap pl ic at io n o f th os e co ns ti tu ti on al ly adequa te pro cedur es ina si ng le cas e wou ldno t re nd er the en ti re Fl or id a cap it al pu ni sh m en t s tatu te un co ns ti tu ti on al an d any death s en te nc es im po se d u nd er i t i nv al id . To the ex te ntth atVall e arg ue s h e is en ti tl edto cle m en cy , hi s ar gu m en t fa il s. Cl em en cy

is gra nt edas “ a m at te r of gra ce.” Ohi o Ad

ul t Pa ro le Auth. v. Woo da rd , 52 3 U.S. 2 72 , 28 0– 81 , 11 8 S . Ct. 1 24 4, 1 25 0 (1 99 8) . The Fl or id a Co ns ti tu ti on ve st s the cle m en cy

po wer s ol el y

inth e ex ecu ti ve branc h, an d e xe rci se of t he po wer i s d is cret io na ry . Fla. Co ns t. art. IV, § 8; Su ll iv an v. Aske w , 34 8 S o. 2 d 3 12 , 31 4– 16 (Fl a. 19 77 ). Vall e thus ha s n o ri gh t t o c le m en cy th athe m ay

en fo rce th ro ug h h is habe as pe ti ti on . The d is tri ctco urt co rrec tl y di sm is se d Val le ’s § 2 25 4 pe ti ti on . 3Alt ern at iv el y , Vall e reque st s thi s C ou rt t o s tay th e ex ecu ti on an d re m an d t o th e d is tri ctco urt s o tha t co un se l m ay be ap po in te d andth e co m pl ai ntcanbe rai se d un de r § 1 98 3. Bu t Val le ha s n otsh owna si gn ifi can t o r subs tant ia l l ik el ih oo d o f su cces s o n the m eri ts of h is cle m en cy cla im or c la im s. See Hil l v . McDo no ug h, 54 7 U.S. 5 73 , 58 4, 1 26 S.Ct . 20 96 , 21 04 (20 06 ) (s tay of e xe cu ti onrequi res

“ sh owi ng of asi gn ifi can t p os si bi li ty of su cces s o n the m eri ts ”); DeYoung v. Owens , 64 6 F .3d13 19 , 13 24 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ) (“ A st ay of e xe cu ti on is equi tabl e rel ie f whi chth is Co urt m ay gra nton ly if th e m ov in g p arty sh ows th at : (1 ) he ha s a subs tant ia l l ik el ih oo d o f su cces s o n the m eri ts . . .”) (in te rn al m ark s o m it te d) ; Po well v. Th om as , 64 1 F .3d12 55 , 12 57 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ) (“ Thi s C ou rt m ay gra nta st ay of e xe cu ti on on ly if th e m ov in g p arty sh ows th at : (1 ) he ha s a s ub st an ti al li ke li ho odof s uc ces s o n the m eri ts . . .”). Accord in gl y , hi s re qu es t i s d en ie d. AFFIRMED.

4