Court Opinion

ID: 9401318
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-12 19:01:21.940346+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:52.069309
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11479    Document: 28-1     Date Filed: 06/12/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-11479
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       MENSHACK NYEPAH,
                                                   Petitioner-Appellant,
       versus
       WARDEN,

                                                  Respondent-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Georgia
                    D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-03206-SDG
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-11479     Document: 28-1      Date Filed: 06/12/2023    Page: 2 of 4

       2                      Opinion of the Court                22-11479

       Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              In this pro se appeal, Menshack Nyepah challenges the denial
       of his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for writ of habeas corpus.
       Nyepah pleaded guilty to two counts of armed robbery, twenty
       counts of aggravated assault, and twenty counts of false imprison-
       ment for his participation in the robbery of a Georgia bank. A state
       court sentenced Nyepah to twenty-five years of confinement and
       an additional twenty-five years of probation. Nyepah moved to
       withdraw his guilty plea, but the state court denied the motion.
               After the Georgia Supreme Court denied his state habeas
       corpus petition, Nyepah petitioned the district court for federal ha-
       beas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Nyepah’s petition stated four
       grounds for his unlawful confinement on the court-provided sec-
       tion 2254 form. He also included fourteen additional grounds in an
       attachment to that form. A magistrate judge issued a report and
       recommendation and recommended that the district court deny
       Nyepah’s habeas petition. The report and recommendation ad-
       dressed the fourteen grounds raised in the attachment to Nyepah’s
       section 2254 form but did not specifically discuss the four other
       grounds listed on the form itself. The district court adopted the
       magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and denied
       Nyepah’s petition. Nyepah timely appealed, and we granted a cer-
       tificate of appealability on the issue of whether the district court
USCA11 Case: 22-11479      Document: 28-1       Date Filed: 06/12/2023     Page: 3 of 4

       22-11479                Opinion of the Court                          3

       erred by failing to consider four of the eighteen grounds in
       Nyepah’s section 2254 petition.
               A district court must “resolve all claims for relief raised in a
       petition for writ of habeas corpus . . ., regardless whether habeas
       relief is granted or denied.” Clisby v. Jones, 960 F.2d 925, 936 (11th
       Cir. 1992) (en banc). If a district court does not address all such
       claims, we vacate the judgement without prejudice and “remand
       for consideration of issues the district court chose not to resolve.”
       Id. at 935–36, 938. But we do not address whether the underlying
       claim has any merit. See Dupree v. Warden, 715 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th
       Cir. 2013).
              Here, the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s re-
       port and recommendation, which addressed fourteen of the eight-
       een grounds in Nyepah’s federal habeas petition. But the magis-
       trate judge’s report failed to analyze the following grounds raised
       in the petition:
                  • plea counsel was ineﬀective for not ensuring that
                    Nyepah’s Boykin rights were read to him;
                  • the trial court improperly sentenced Nyepah for two
                    counts of aggravated assault because Nyepah did not
                    plead guilty to them;
                  • the trial court erred by denying Nyepah’s second mo-
                    tion to withdraw his guilty plea; and
                  • the trial court should not have denied Nyepah’s mo-
                    tion for substitution of counsel.
USCA11 Case: 22-11479      Document: 28-1      Date Filed: 06/12/2023     Page: 4 of 4

       4                      Opinion of the Court                  22-11479

               Because the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s re-
       port and recommendation without discussing those four grounds,
       it did not “resolve all claims” in Nyepah’s petition. See Clisby, 960
       F.2d at 936. The government agrees that the district court’s denial
       of Nyepah’s petition contravenes Clisby. Though Nyepah appears
       to argue the merits—not the Clisby error—on appeal, we may re-
       view the issue sua sponte because “the proper resolution is beyond
       any doubt.” See United States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 873 (11th Cir.
       2022).
            Accordingly, we VACATE the district court’s order denying
       Nyepah’s petition for habeas corpus without prejudice and
       REMAND for consideration of the four unresolved grounds.