FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT MAY 31, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 17009

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 0 0 5 1 4 - C V- F T M- 3 3 - DN F F R A N K R A F A E L E N R I Q U E Z , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s F L O R I D A P A R O L E C O M M I S S I O N , F L O R I D A D E P A R T M E N T O F C O R R E C T I O N S , S T A T E O F F L O R I D A , V A R I O U S J O H N D O E S , R e s p o n d e n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 31, 2007)Honora ble Tom Stag g , Senior United States District Judg e for the Western District of * L ouisiana, sitting by

designation. 2 B ef ore C A R N E S and W IL S O N , C i rc ui tJudg es , and S T A G G , D i stri ctJudg e. * P E R C U R I A M: W i tho utre qu i ri ng an answ erfr om the re spon dent s, the di stri ctcourt su m m ari l y d i sm i ssed th e fed eral h ab eas p et i t i o n i n th i s case o n Y o u n g er v . H arri s, 401 U . S . 37, 91 S . C t . 746 ( 1971) , gr ounds . A pe t i t i on s houl d be di s m i s s e d w i thout re qu i ri ng an answ eron l y “ [i ] f i tpl ai nl y app ea rs fr om the pet i t i on and any att ac hed exhi bi t s thatthe pet i t i on eri s notent i t l ed t o rel i ef . ” F ed. H ab. R . 4; se e a ls o B la c k le d g e v . A llis o n , 4 3 1 U .S . 6 3 , 7 5

– 7 6 , 9 7 S .C t. 1 6 2 1 , 1 6 3 0 ( 1 9 7 7 ) . C on strui ng the pet i t i on l i bera l l y, as w e a re re qu i re d t o d o b ec ause i tw as fi l ed pro se , H ai nes v. K erner, 40 4 U . S . 51 9, 52 0, 92 S . C t . 59 4 (19 72 ), w e c anno tsa y that the Y ou ng eri ss ue i s s i m pl e e no ug h t hatthe pet i t i on di d n otdese rve the great er a tte n tio n th a t w o u ld h a v e c o m e in n o n - s u m m a r y p r o c e e d in g s . Ital so appears fr om the re spon dent s’ tw o b ri ef s i n t hi s C ou rtthatthere m ay be ot her defe nses thatthey w i sh t o rai se , i f gi ven a chance t o p l ea d t hem , and t hat th o s e d e f e n s e s , o re v e n a d e c is io n o n th e m e r its , m a y p r o v id e a m o r e c le a rc u t r e s o lu tio n th a n th e o n e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c h o s e w ith o u t th e b e n e f it o f a r e s p o n s e to the pe t i t i on. W e c a nnots a y f ors ur e be c a us e the r e c or d a tthi s s t a ge i s s ki m py , the pet i t i on i s a m bi gu ou s i n sever al key r es pect s, and w e do n othave the benefi tof aThis casewas orig inally schedule d for oral argument, but it was decide d without 1 argument pursuant to 11th Cir. R. 34-3(f). 3 fu l l er treat m en to f th e v ari o u s i ssu es b y th e d i stri ctco u rt . F i n al l y, si n ce t h i s case le f t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a n A s s is ta n t F e d e r a l P u b lic D e f e n d e rh a s u n d e r ta k e n to r e pr e s e ntthe pe t i t i one r , a nd a de c i s i on a tthe di s tr i c tc our tl e ve l w i l l be ne f i tf r om h er ab l e assi st an ce. A n am en d m en tt o cl ari fy th e p et i t i o n w o u l d b e a g o o d fi rst s te p . F orthe s e r e a s ons , w e va c a t e the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s or de rs um m a r i l y di s m i s s i ng the habeas pet i t i on and rem and t he ca se for f urther procee di ng s a nd a f ul l er tr e a t m e ntof

the c a s e . I n doi ng s o, w e ne i the re xpr e s s nori m pl y a ny vi e w a bout the pr ope rr e s ol ut i on of the Y ounge ri s s ue ora ny othe ri s s ue tha ta r i s e s f r om a ny a m e n d m e n t to th e p e titio n o rf r o m th e r e s p o n d e n ts ’ a n s w e r . V AC AT E D A ND RE MAND E D. 1