[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
May 20, 2008
No. 07-14907 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-02073-CV-S
LARRY R. GAITHER,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
WARDEN,
Bullock County Correctional Facility,
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF STATE OF ALABAMA,
Respondents-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
_________________________
(May 20, 2008)
Before ANDERSON, HULL and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Larry R. Gaither, an Alabama prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district
court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
The district court granted a certificate of appealability (“COA”) on the following
issue: whether Gaither’s mental incompetency claim was procedurally defaulted.
For the reasons set forth more fully below, we affirm.
Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted
by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.” Tannenbaum v. United
States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). However, a litigant who offers no
substantive argument on an issue in his initial brief abandons a challenge to that
issue on appeal. See Irwin v. Hawk, 40 F.3d 347, 347 n.1 (11th Cir. 1994). In his
initial brief, Gaither only addresses his claim that his convictions for felony driving
under the influence were unconstitutionally obtained in violation of the Fifth
Amendment protection against double jeopardy, and only makes a passing
reference to his mental competency, asserting that he had been diagnosed with a
mental illness in 1986. Therefore, we hold that Gaither abandoned the issue.
Insofar as Gaither raises his mental incompetency claim for the first time in his
reply brief, the issue is not properly before us. See Lovett v. Ray, 327 F.3d 1181,
1183 (11th Cir. 2003) (holding that this court does not address arguments raised by
a pro se litigant for the first time in a reply brief). Further, to the extent Gaither
2
addresses the merits of his double jeopardy claim in his initial brief, we do not
consider this claim because appellate review is limited to the issues specified in the
COA. Murray v. United States, 145 F.3d 1249, 1250-51 (11th Cir. 1998).
In light of the foregoing, the district court’s dismissal of Gaither’s § 2254
petition is
AFFIRMED.
3