[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAY 31, 2007
No. 05-17009 THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________ CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 05-00514-CV-FTM-33-DNF
FRANK RAFAEL ENRIQUEZ,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION,
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
STATE OF FLORIDA,
VARIOUS JOHN DOES,
Respondents-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(May 31, 2007)
Before CARNES and WILSON, Circuit Judges, and STAGG *, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Without requiring an answer from the respondents, the district court
summarily dismissed the federal habeas petition in this case on Younger v. Harris,
401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746 (1971), grounds. A petition should be dismissed without
requiring an answer only “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached
exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Fed. Hab. R. 4; see
also Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75–76, 97 S.Ct. 1621, 1630 (1977).
Construing the petition liberally, as we are required to do because it was filed pro
se, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594 (1972), we cannot say that
the Younger issue is simple enough that the petition did not deserve the greater
attention that would have come in non-summary proceedings.
It also appears from the respondents’ two briefs in this Court that there may
be other defenses that they wish to raise, if given a chance to plead them, and that
those defenses, or even a decision on the merits, may provide a more clear cut
resolution than the one the district court chose without the benefit of a response to
the petition. We cannot say for sure because the record at this stage is skimpy, the
petition is ambiguous in several key respects, and we do not have the benefit of a
*
Honorable Tom Stagg, Senior United States District Judge for the Western District of
Louisiana, sitting by designation.
2
fuller treatment of the various issues by the district court. Finally, since this case
left the district court an Assistant Federal Public Defender has undertaken to
represent the petitioner, and a decision at the district court level will benefit from
her able assistance. An amendment to clarify the petition would be a good first
step.
For these reasons, we vacate the district court’s order summarily dismissing
the habeas petition and remand the case for further proceedings and a fuller
treatment of the case. In doing so, we neither express nor imply any view about
the proper resolution of the Younger issue or any other issue that arises from any
amendment to the petition or from the respondents’ answer.
VACATED AND REMANDED.1
1
This case was originally scheduled for oral argument, but it was decided without
argument pursuant to 11th Cir. R. 34-3(f).
3