Court Opinion

ID: 9929114
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-01 19:01:18.71739+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:10:49.916380
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12401    Document: 25-1     Date Filed: 02/01/2024   Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-12401
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       FRANK CARTER, JR.,
                                                   Petitioner-Appellant,
       versus
       SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

                                                  Respondent-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 3:21-cv-00797-LC-ZCB
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12401      Document: 25-1       Date Filed: 02/01/2024      Page: 2 of 4

       2                       Opinion of the Court                   22-12401

       Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Petitioner Frank Carter, Jr., is a Florida state prisoner. Carter
       has filed in federal court a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleg-
       ing that his state conviction and sentence violate his federal consti-
       tutional rights. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. As relevant for this appeal,
       Carter asserts in his habeas petition that his trial attorney per-
       formed ineffectively by failing to move for an evidentiary hearing
       under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579
       (1993).
              The district court dismissed Carter’s Daubert-based claim as
       procedurally defaulted. Under the Antiterrorism and Effective
       Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), a state prisoner typically must
       exhaust the relevant state’s available post-conviction remedies be-
       fore pursuing a federal habeas petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A).
       When a state prisoner fails to raise and litigate a habeas claim in
       state post-conviction proceedings, that claim is unexhausted and
       thus cannot be pursued in federal court. See Bailey v. Nagle, 172 F.3d
       1299, 1303 (11th Cir. 1999). The Daubert-based claim first appeared
       in Carter’s second state post-conviction petition, and the state
       courts dismissed that claim as procedurally defaulted. Accordingly,
       there is no doubt that the Daubert-based claim was procedurally de-
       faulted under AEDPA.
             In certain circumstances, however, a procedural default can
       be equitably excused. The Supreme Court held in Martinez v. Ryan
USCA11 Case: 22-12401       Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 02/01/2024      Page: 3 of 4

       22-12401                Opinion of the Court                           3

       that a procedurally defaulted claim can nonetheless proceed if the
       procedural default was caused either by ineffective counsel in the
       earlier post-conviction proceeding or by the fact that “there was no
       counsel . . . in that proceeding . . . .” 566 U.S. 1, 17 (2012). Carter’s
       state post-conviction petitions were all filed pro se. But the district
       court did not consider whether Martinez applied to Carter’s Daub-
       ert-based habeas claim.
               We granted a certificate of appealability limited to the fol-
       lowing question: “Whether the district court erred in failing to con-
       sider Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012), as a basis to excuse Carter’s
       procedural default of [the Daubert-based claim] of his § 2254 peti-
       tion?” The issue for our review is narrow. We do not decide today
       whether Carter’s Daubert-based claim is meritorious. We do not
       even decide today whether Martinez excuses Carter’s procedural
       default. Today, we decide only whether Carter’s pro se filings in the
       district court were sufficient to raise a Martinez argument that
       should have been addressed below.
              The district court did not err in failing to apply Martinez to
       Carter’s Daubert-based claim because Carter waited too long to
       even attempt to raise a Martinez-style argument. The first time that
       Carter even arguably raised Martinez or otherwise argued for an
       excuse of the procedural default of the Daubert-based claim was
       when he filed objections to the magistrate judge’s recommenda-
       tion that the habeas petition be denied. By failing to argue the point
       earlier—i.e., when Respondent answered the petition and argued
       for denial on procedural default grounds—Carter forfeited the
USCA11 Case: 22-12401     Document: 25-1     Date Filed: 02/01/2024    Page: 4 of 4

       4                     Opinion of the Court                22-12401

       procedural default issue. We have made clear that district courts
       are under no obligation to consider arguments raised for the first
       time in an objection to a magistrate judge’s report and recommen-
       dation. Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1290–92 (11th Cir. 2009).
       And when a district court declines to address an untimely raised
       issue, that issue has been forfeited for appellate review. Knight v.
       Thompson, 797 F.3d 934, 937 n.1 (11th Cir. 2015) (citing Williams,
       557 F.3d at 1291).
            The district court’s denial of Carter’s habeas petition is
       AFFIRMED.