Court Opinion

ID: 9930719
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-07 17:01:11.480886+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:25:24.188277
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12737    Document: 25-1     Date Filed: 02/07/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-12737
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       MICHAEL MEYERS,
                                                   Petitioner-Appellant,
       versus
       SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
       ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA,

                                                Respondents-Appellees.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 5:19-cv-00460-PGB-PRL
USCA11 Case: 22-12737      Document: 25-1       Date Filed: 02/07/2024     Page: 2 of 3

       2                       Opinion of the Court                  22-12737

                            ____________________

       Before WILSON, LUCK, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Michael Meyers, a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, ap-
       peals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a
       writ of habeas corpus. We granted a certificate of appealability
       (“COA”) as to the following issue: “Did Meyers’ trial counsel pro-
       vide ineffective assistance, under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
       668 (1984), by conceding Meyers’ guilt as to the theft charge during
       closing arguments?” However, the majority of Meyers’ brief ar-
       gues that counsel was ineffective for conceding to a trespass charge
       and he only mentions the theft charge one time, in passing.
               When evaluating a district court’s denial of a § 2254 petition,
       we review questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact de
       novo, and ﬁndings of fact for clear error. Tanzi v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of
       Corr., 772 F.3d 644, 651 (11th Cir. 2014).
               The scope of review in a habeas appeal is limited to the is-
       sues speciﬁed in the COA. Murray v. United States, 145 F.3d 1249,
       1250 (11th Cir. 1998). Documents ﬁled by pro se litigants are to be
       liberally construed and must be held to less stringent standards
       than documents drafted by attorneys. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,
       106 (1976). Nevertheless, pro se litigants are still required to con-
       form to procedural rules. Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th
       Cir. 2007). Further, liberal treatment of pro se pleadings “does not
       give a court license to serve as de facto counsel for a party, or to
USCA11 Case: 22-12737      Document: 25-1       Date Filed: 02/07/2024     Page: 3 of 3

       22-12737                Opinion of the Court                          3

       rewrite an otherwise deﬁcient pleading in order to sustain an ac-
       tion.” Campbell v. Air Jamaica, 760 F.3d 1165, 1168-69 (11th Cir.
       2014). An appellant abandons any argument not briefed before us,
       made in passing, or raised brieﬂy without supporting arguments or
       authority. Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330
       (11th Cir. 2004); Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678,
       681 (11th Cir. 2014).
               Here, most of Meyers’ brief is beyond our review because it
       does not address the issue speciﬁed in the COA. Murray, 145 F.3d
       at 1250. We granted a COA as to the following issue only: “Did
       Meyers’ trial counsel provide ineﬀective assistance, under Strick-
       land . . . by conceding Meyers’ guilt as to the theft charge during
       closing arguments?” However, the majority of Meyers’ brief ar-
       gues that counsel was ineﬀective for conceding to the trespass
       charge and he only mentions the theft charge one time, in passing.
       And, in that instance, Meyers makes no argument regarding the
       theft charge but, instead, simply quotes counsel’s language from
       closing argument. Although we liberally construe Meyers’ argu-
       ments, we cannot serve as de facto counsel to rewrite the deﬁcien-
       cies in his pleadings. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106; Albra, 490 F.3d at 829;
       Campbell, 760 F.3d at 1168-69. Accordingly, he has abandoned any
       challenge to the certiﬁed question by failing to properly brief it on
       appeal and we aﬃrm. Access Now, Inc., 385 F.3d at 1330.
                     AFFIRMED.