Court Opinion

ID: 9927903
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-30 16:01:16.781581+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:29:15.515722
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10217   Document: 14-1    Date Filed: 01/30/2024   Page: 1 of 4

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                              No. 23-10217
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       LARRY JEROME GRADY,
                                                 Petitioner-Appellant,
       versus
       KEVIN WHITE,
       Capt.,
       ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF ALABAMA,
       STATE OF ALABAMA,
       LEE COUNTY, ALABAMA,

                                              Respondents-Appellees.

                         ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-10217      Document: 14-1     Date Filed: 01/30/2024     Page: 2 of 4

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 23-10217

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Alabama
                   D.C. Docket No. 3:22-cv-00508-ECM-SMD
                           ____________________

       Before JORDAN, GRANT, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Larry Grady, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s
       denial of his “Motion to Reconsider Appeal to Federal Court 2254.”
       The magistrate judge construed Grady’s motion as seeking an
       order (1) directing a state court to grant his application to proceed
       in forma pauperis and to send litigation documents to the federal
       court, and (2) granting Grady habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
       The magistrate judge recommended dismissing Grady’s motion for
       lack of jurisdiction, which the district court adopted after receiving
       no objections from Grady. We agree with the magistrate judge’s
       analysis and affirm.
              Grady does not now challenge the district court’s
       conclusions—he merely raises the same arguments about the
       impropriety of his prior conviction. While we hold the allegations
       of pro se litigants to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings
       drafted by lawyers,” we may not “serve as de facto counsel for a
       party” or “rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to
       sustain an action.” Campbell v. Air Jamaica Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168–
       69 (11th Cir. 2014). An appellant abandons any argument not
       briefed on appeal, made in passing, or raised briefly without
USCA11 Case: 23-10217        Document: 14-1         Date Filed: 01/30/2024        Page: 3 of 4

       23-10217                  Opinion of the Court                               3

       supporting arguments or authority. Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins.
       Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681–82 (11th Cir. 2014) (collecting cases). Grady
       has forfeited any challenge to the district court’s conclusion that it
       lacks jurisdiction over his motion.
              Even if Grady had not forfeited those arguments, we would
       agree with the district court’s ruling. First, “federal courts have no
       general power to issue writs of mandamus to direct state courts
       and their judicial officers in the performance of their duties where
       mandamus is the only relief sought.” Lamar v. 118th Judicial Dist.
       Ct., 440 F.2d 383, 384 (5th Cir.1971). 1 The district court properly
       denied Grady’s motion to the extent that he seeks a writ directing
       the Lee County Circuit Court to act.
              Second, to the extent Grady seeks a writ of habeas corpus
       under § 2254, the district court lacked jurisdiction over his action
       because it is a successive habeas petition filed without the required
       appellate court permission. In 2011, Grady filed a habeas petition
       challenging the same underlying conviction, and the court denied
       Grady relief, dismissing his petition with prejudice. See Grady v.
       Jones, No. 3:11-CV-430, 2014 WL 793541 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 26, 2014).
       Grady could have raised his current arguments in his previous
       habeas petition, and he has “no legitimate excuse for failure to do
       so.” Stewart v. United States, 646 F.3d 856, 859 (11th Cir. 2011). This
       kind of successive habeas petition is only possible with permission

       1 This Court has adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth

       Circuit handed down prior to close of business on September 30, 1981. Bonner
       v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.1981) (en banc).
USCA11 Case: 23-10217      Document: 14-1      Date Filed: 01/30/2024     Page: 4 of 4

       4                      Opinion of the Court                  23-10217

       from the appropriate court of appeals. 28 U.S.C. 2255(h). Because
       Grady has not furnished a certification from this Court permitting
       a successive habeas petition, the district court lacked jurisdiction to
       grant the requested relief. Gilreath v. State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles,
       273 F.3d 932, 933 (11th Cir. 2001).
              On appeal, Grady has also filed a “Motion to Amend under
       Newly Discovered Evidence,” which we construe as a motion to
       consider supplemental arguments. We have long held that “an
       appellant who does not raise an issue in his opening brief may not
       do so in his reply brief [or] in a supplemental brief.” United States
       v. Durham, 795 F.3d 1329, 1330 (11th Cir. 2015). So to the extent
       that Grady seeks to raise new issues on appeal, the motion is
       denied. And we also deny the motion to the extent that Grady
       seeks leave to file a supplemental brief.
              Because the district court lacked jurisdiction over Grady’s
       suit, we AFFIRM.