[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
October 21, 2008
No. 08-10143 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-02133-CV-T-17-TBM
DAVID ARMANDO BUTLER,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
WALTER A. MCNEIL,
BILL MCCOLLUM, Attorney
General of the State of Florida,
Respondents-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(October 21, 2008)
Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
David Armando Butler, a Florida state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals
the district court’s denial of his pro se habeas corpus petition filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254. We granted Butler’s application for a certificate of appealability
(“COA”) for the following issue:
Whether, in light of Clisby v. Jones, 960 F.2d 925, 936 (11th Cir.
1992) (en banc), the district court failed to address Butler’s claim that
the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence in the form of an
officer’s report that Butler had confessed, in violation of Brady v.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 1197, 10 L.Ed.2d 215
(1963).
The scope of our review is limited to this issue. See Murray v. United States, 145
F.3d 1249, 1250-51 (11th Cir. 1998) (addressing a § 2255 motion).
In Clisby, out of “deep concern over the piecemeal litigation of federal
habeas petitions filed by state prisoners,” we exercised our supervisory authority,
and instructed district courts “to resolve all claims for relief raised in a petition for
writ habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, regardless of whether habeas
relief is granted or denied.” 960 F.2d at 935-36. “A claim for relief” is “any
allegation of a constitutional violation.” Id. at 936. “[A]n allegation of one
constitutional violation and an allegation of another constitutional violation
constitute two distinct claims for relief, even if both allegations arise from the same
alleged set of operative facts.” Id. When a district court fails to address all of the
2
claims in a habeas petition, we “vacate the district court’s judgment without
prejudice and remand the case for consideration of all remaining claims . . . .” Id.
at 938.
In the case at hand, the district court apparently overlooked our ruling in
Clisby by failing to address all of the claims asserted in Butler’s § 2254 petition.
The record reveals, and the state concedes, that the district court failed to resolve
Butler’s claim that the prosecution violated Brady by withholding a police report
stating that Butler had confessed.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
3