Case: 12-14637 Date Filed: 10/30/2013 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-14637
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-23134-KMM
IVAN FERNANDEZ,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(October 30, 2013)
Before DUBINA, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Ivan Fernandez appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus
that challenged his conviction in a Florida court of second degree murder. See 28
Case: 12-14637 Date Filed: 10/30/2013 Page: 2 of 3
U.S.C. § 2254. We granted a certificate of appealability to decide whether
Fernandez fairly presented to the district court a claim that his trial counsel was
ineffective for failing to investigate and argue that Fernandez acted in self-defense.
After a careful review of the record, we answer that question in the negative and
affirm.
Fernandez failed to present in his petition the claim that trial counsel was
ineffective for failing to argue about self-defense. Fernandez was required to
present that claim in clear and simple language so that it could be easily identified
and understood by the district court. See Smith v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 572 F.3d
1327, 1352 (11th Cir. 2009). Fernandez alleged in his petition that the “trial court
committed fundamental error by instructing the jury on the forcible felony
exception to self-defense” and that “trial counsel did not present[] a complete
defense,” but the district court understandably interpreted Fernandez’s allegations
as presenting a claim that trial counsel had been ineffective for failing to object to
the jury instruction. Fernandez “adopt[ed] . . . [and] incorporated by reference” his
brief on direct appeal in the state courts, which addressed only the alleged error of
the trial court in giving the instruction. Fernandez incorporated by reference into
his federal petition all the claims of ineffective assistance that he raised in his first
state postconviction motion, see Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850, but that motion did not
include the claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to argue about self-
2
Case: 12-14637 Date Filed: 10/30/2013 Page: 3 of 3
defense. Although that claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was raised in
Fernandez’s second state postconviction motion, Fernandez did not even allude to
his second motion in his federal petition. See Smith, 572 F.3d at 1352. Fernandez
included his claim of ineffective assistance in his objection to the report and
recommendation, but we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion
when it refused to consider a claim that Fernandez had never presented to the
magistrate judge. See Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1292 (11th Cir. 2009)
(“[A] district court has discretion to decline to consider a party’s argument when
that argument was not first presented to the magistrate judge.”).
We AFFIRM the denial of Fernandez’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
3