FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT JUNE 9 , 2006 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- 15616 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 3 - 0 0 2 5 7 - C V - 5 - MMP - E MT M I C H A E L A N D E R S O N , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s A L S O L O M A N , W a r d e n , C H A R L I E C R I S T , 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 N or the rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju n e 9, 2006) B efo re B L A C K , B A R K E T T an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es.2

P E R C U R I A M: M i chae l A nd er son app ea l s pro se the deni al of hi s pet i t i on for w ri tof habeas c orpus . T he di s tr i c tc ourtgr a nt e d ac e r t i f i c a t e of appe a l abi l i ty on the i s s ue of w hether A nd er son “ w as af forded an adequat e opp ortun i ty t o p re se nthi s w i tness es a tthe di s c i pl i na ry he a r i ng. ” B e c aus e w e f i nd A nde r s on f

a i l e d t o s how the de c i s i on o f th e s t a t e c o u rtw a s “ c o n tr a ry t o ” o r“ a n u n r e a s o n ab l e ap p l i c a t i o n o f ” Su p r e me Co u rtp r e c e d e n t , 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) , w e a f f i rm. O n J ul y 15, 2002, A nde r s on, apr i s one rof the s t a t e of

F l or i da , w a s i s s ue d a di s c i pl i na ry r e portf

ordi s obe y i ng the ve rba l or de rof ac orr e c t i ons of

f i c e rw hi l e on a w ork ass i gn m ent . In prepara t i on for hi s di sc i pl i naryhear i ng , A nd er son request ed tha ts e ve r a l w i tne s s e s t o the i nc i de ntbe i nt e rvi e w e d. B e f or e the he a r i ng, c orr e c t i ons of

f i c e r s c ol l e c t e d s hor ts t a t e m e nt s f r om the i nm a t e s i de nt i f

i e d by A nd er son. S ever al of these st at em ent s w er e f avorabl e t o A nd er son’ s def ense that th e c o rr e c tio n s o f

f ic e r s s in g le d h im o u t, b u t o th e r s s u p p o r te d th e o f f ic e r s ’ p o s itio n . Atth e d i s c i p l i n a ry h e a r i n g , An d e r s o n wa s f o u n d g u i l ty o f

th e c h a r g e . As puni s hm e nt , A nde r s on r e c e i ve d 30 da y s of di s c i pl i na ry c onf

i ne m e nt , a nd he f o r f e ite d 3 0 d a y s o f

“g a in tim e .” A nd er son fi l ed a pet i t i on for aw ri tof m andam us i n F l ori da st at e c ou rtthat s o u g h t to in v a lid a te th e d e c is io n o f th e d is c ip lin a ry b o a r d a n d to r e s to r e h is g a in3

tim e . A m o n g o th e rth in g s , A n d e r s o n a r g u e d th a t th e p r is o n o f f ic ia ls d e n ie d h im the opportuni ty t o i nt e rvi e w w i tne s s e s be c aus e the of f i c e r s w ho c ol l e c t e d the s t a t e m e nt s “ ha r a s s e d a nd/ orhurr i e d” the w i tne s s e s . A nde r s on a l l e ge d tha tthe co rrect i o n s o ffi cers w at ch ed o v er th e w i tn esses w h i l e th ey w ro t e th ei r st at em en t s, m a d e c o m m e n ts to th e m ab o u t w h a t th e y w r o te d o w n , a n d lim ite d th e irs ta te m e n ts t o tw o orthr e e s e nt e nc e s . T he s t a t e c our tde ni e d A nde r s on’ s pe t i t i on, a nd a F l or i daappe l l a t e c ourta f f i rm e d. A nd er son then fi l ed thi s pet i t i on for w ri tof habeas corpus i n federa l di stri ct c ourt . T he m a gi s tr a t e j udge f ound tha tthe pr oc e dur e s us e d by the c orr e c t i ons o f f ic e r s to c o lle c t s ta te m e n ts s a tis f ie d th e r e q u ir e m e n ts o f

W o lf f v . M c D o n n e ll, 418 U . S . 539, 94 S . C t . 2963 ( 1974) . A nde r s on obj e c t e d on the gr ound tha tthe s t a t e c ourtf

a i l e d t o appl y P ont e v. R e a l , 471 U . S . 491, 105 S . C t . 2192 ( 1985) , but the di stri ctcourtadop t ed the fi nd i ng s of the m agi stra t e j ud ge. T he di stri ctcourt gr a nt e d A nde r s on ac e rt i f i c a t e of appe a l abi l i ty on the que s t i on w he the rthe al l egedl y i nadequ at e procedure f or t aki ng w i tness st at em ent s vi ol at ed P on t e. W hen revi ew i ng the deni al of a pet i t i on for w ri tof habeas corpus, w e r evi ew

“ the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s f

i ndi ngs of

f a c tf orc l e a re rr ora nd i t s l e ga l c onc l us i ons a nd m i xe d que s t i ons of

l a w a nd f

a c tde novo. ” C r a w f

or d v. H e a d, 311 F . 3d 1288, 1295 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( q u o tin g F u g a te v . H e a d , 2 6 1 F .3 d 1 2 0 6 , 1 2 1 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ) .4

U nde rthe A nt i t e rr or i s m a nd E f f e c t i ve D e a th P e na l ty A c t , aw r i tof habe a s c orpus m ayno ti ss ue un l es s the st at e c ou rtadj ud i ca t i on “ re sul t ed i n a deci si on thatw as contraryt o, or i nv ol ved an u nrea sonabl e app l i ca t i on of, cl earl y e st abl i shed F eder al l a w , a s de t e rm i ne d by the S upr e m e C our tof the U ni t e d S t a t e s ” or“ r e s ul t e d i n a de c i s i on tha tw a s ba s e d on a n unr e a s onabl e de t e rm i na t i on of the f a c t s i n l i ghtof th e e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d in th e S ta te c o u r t p r o c e e d in g .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) . A nd er son argues that , because the st at e c ou rtfa i l ed t o app l y P on t e, i t s dec i si on w as “c o n tr a ry to ” o r“a n u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n o f ” S u p r e m e C o u r t p r e c e d e n t. W e di sa gree . P on t e does notgo vern thi s app ea l . In P on t e, the pri soner c al l ed se vera l w itn e s s e s to te s tif

y a t h is d is c ip lin a ry h e a r in g , b u t th e b o a r d “d e c lin e d to c a ll” a ll b u t o n e o f

th o s e w itn e s s e s . 4 7 1 U .S . a t 4 9 3 , 1 0 5 S . C t. a t 2 1 9 4 . T h e C o u r t h e ld tha t“ pr i s on of

f i c i a l s m a y be r e qui r e d t o e xpl a i n, i n al i m i t e d m a nne r , the r e a s on w hy w i tne s s e s w e r e nota l l ow e d t o t e s t i f y . ” I d. a t497, 105 S . C t . a t2196 (e m ph as i s a dd ed). I n th is ap p e a l, A n d e r s o n w a s n o t d e n ie d th e o p p o r tu n ity to c a ll w itn e s s e s . A s A n d e r s o n c o n c e d e s , s ta te m e n ts w e r e ta k e n f r o m s e v e r a l w itn e s s e s a t h is re qu es t , and these st at em ent s w er e c on si dere d as e vi dence athi s di sc i pl i nary he a r i ng. S e ve r a l of

the s e s t a t e m e nt s w e r e f a vor abl e t o hi s de f

e ns e . T he de c i s i on5

of the F l ori da court s thatA nd er son h ad no tbeen deni ed du e proces s w as no tan un re as on abl e app l i ca t i on of cl earl y e st abl i shed fe dera l l aw . 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(d); H a w ki ns v. A l aba m a , 318 F . 3d 1302, 1306- 07 n. 3 ( 11th C i r . 2003) . T he or de rof th e d is tr ic t c o u rt th a t d e n ie d A n d e r s o n ’s p e titio n f o rw r it o f

h ab e a s c o rp u s is A FFI R M ED .