[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
January 9, 2006
No. 05-12212 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 04-00611-CV-ORL-22-DAB
STEVEN EARL BEAVER,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
CHARLES B. WELCH, Warden,
Hardee Correctional Institution,
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondents-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(January 9, 2006)
Before ANDERSON, BIRCH and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Stephen Earl Beaver, a Florida prisoner, appeals pro se the denial of his
habeas corpus petition, § 28 U.S.C. 2254. He argues that the district court erred in
only considering the claims raised in his “petition for amended habeas corpus,” and
failing to consider and adjudicate the claims raised in his previously filed § 2254
petition because he did not understand the legal distinction between an amended
filing and a supplemental filing, and his pro se pleading must be held to a less
stringent standard than those filed by a lawyer.
When reviewing the district court’s denial of a habeas petition, we review
questions of law de novo. LeCroy v. Sec’y, Florida Dept. of Corr., 421 F.3d 1237,
1259 (11th Cir. 2005). This court has held that “[p]ro se pleadings are held to a
less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be
liberally construed.” Trawinski v. United Technologies, 313 F.3d 1295, 1297
(11th Cir. 2002).
A review of Beaver’s filings in the district court shows that he was
attempting to supplement his original § 2254 petition when he filed his “petition
for amended habeas corpus,” and not to abandon his previously raised claims. The
district court erred in failing to liberally construe Beaver’s motion as a motion to
supplement his petition and to consider same.
VACATED AND REMANDED
2