[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
April 5, 2006
No. 05-14342 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 04-00071-CV-3-MCR-MD
KENNETH D. JEWSON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
GARY THOMAS,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
_________________________
(April 5, 2006)
Before DUBINA, BLACK and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Florida prisoner Kenneth D. Jewson appeals the district court’s denial of his
federal habeas petition, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We granted a
certificate of appealability (COA) on the following issue only:
Whether the district court violated Clisby v. Jones, 960 F.2d 925, 938
(11th Cir. 1992) (en banc), by failing to address appellant’s claim that
the district court judge lacked jurisdiction to issue an order on an
evidentiary hearing held before another judge, as set forth in claim 11
of appellant’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition.
Normally, we deem issues not argued in the petitioner’s brief abandoned.
See Hartsfield v. Lemacks, 50 F.3d 950, 953 (11th Cir. 1995) (considering
abandonment in context of a § 1983 action). For example, in Isaacs v. Head, the
district court certified 16 grounds for appeal in the COA, but Isaacs only argued 8
of these in his brief. 300 F.3d 1232, 1238 (11th Cir. 2002). We held the other
eight grounds were abandoned. Id.
We granted a COA on the issue of whether the district court erred by not
addressing the merits of Jewson’s claim 11, that the state trial court conducting his
post-conviction evidentiary hearing did not possess subject matter jurisdiction to
rule on the hearing once the initial judge recused himself. Jewson’s brief only
addressed the merits of the claim, not whether the district court erred by not
addressing it. Jewson abandoned the sole issue on which we granted the COA by
failing to argue the issue on appeal.
2
Even if Jewson had not abandoned the claim, the district court did not fail to
address Jewson’s claim. All claims regarding defects, jurisdictional or otherwise,
in Jewson’s state collateral proceeding were resolved by the district court’s finding
that such claims were not properly brought in a § 2254 petition because those
claims did not attack Jewson’s confinement, but only attacked a proceeding
collateral to that confinement.
Jewson abandoned the Clisby issue on appeal. Furthermore, the district
court resolved each issue related to Jewson’s state collateral proceeding in deciding
his § 2254 petition.
AFFIRMED.
3