Tasha Michelle Blackburn v. United States

Case: 15-10670 Date Filed: 09/27/2016 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-10670
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 1:11-cv-00727-WS-B,
1:08-cr-00256-WS-B-2
TASHA MICHELLE BLACKBURN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
________________________
(September 27, 2016)
Before HULL, MARCUS and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Tasha Blackburn, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of her
28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct her sentence, which she
Case: 15-10670 Date Filed: 09/27/2016 Page: 2 of 4
filed after a jury convicted her of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
methamphetamine. She contends the district court erred in denying her claim that
one of her trial lawyers rendered ineffective assistance. She also contends the
district court erred in failing to address claims she raised about another one of her
trial lawyers. For the reasons that follow, we vacate and remand for further
proceedings.
Liberally construed, 1 Blackburn’s § 2255 motion raised a number of
ineffective assistance claims regarding her trial and appellate counsel. Blackburn
was represented by three different lawyers leading up to her trial (a fourth,
unrelated to this stage of her § 2255 appeal, represented her on direct appeal). Her
lawyers’ representation did not overlap. Blackburn first was represented by Fred
Tiemann, against whom she raised no claims in her § 2255 motion. Next, she was
represented by Paul Murray, and finally, by Thomas Haas. In her § 2255 motion,
although Blackburn did not name Murray and Haas, she referred when asserting
her ineffective assistance of counsel claims to both her “trial counsel” and “former
counsel.” In her briefing on the § 2255 motion, Blackburn named Murray and
Haas, described their roles in representing her, and claimed that both rendered
ineffective assistance.
1
We hold pro se pleadings to a less stringent standard than counseled pleadings. See
Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998).
2
Case: 15-10670 Date Filed: 09/27/2016 Page: 3 of 4
The district court referred Blackburn’s § 2255 motion to a magistrate judge.
The magistrate judge acknowledged that Blackburn had asserted claims against
both Murray and Haas, but failed to address her claims against Haas. The
magistrate judge recommended that the district court deny Blackburn’s motion.
Blackburn objected to the recommendation, asserting that the magistrate judge
failed to address her claims that Haas rendered ineffective assistance during his
tenure as her counsel. The district court summarily overruled Blackburn’s
objections, adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and denied
Blackburn’s motion.
This Court granted Blackburn a certificate of appealability on, as relevant
here, whether the district court erred under Clisby v. Jones, 960 F.2d 925 (11th Cir.
1992) (en banc), in overlooking Blackburn’s claims that Haas rendered ineffective
assistance by: (1) failing to discuss with her the government’s plea offer and
inform her of the benefits of accepting it; (2) failing to inform her of the potential
results of proceeding to trial rather than pleading guilty, even assuming Haas
lacked access to the government’s plea offer; and (3) wrongly advising her that she
could not be convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
methamphetamine.
A district court must resolve all of a habeas petitioner’s claims for relief,
regardless of whether relief is granted or denied. Clisby, 960 F.2d at 935-36; see
3
Case: 15-10670 Date Filed: 09/27/2016 Page: 4 of 4
also Rhode v. United States, 583 F.3d 1289, 1291 (11th Cir. 2009) (holding that
Clisby, which addressed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus,
applies equally to § 2255 proceedings). When a district court fails to address all of
a petitioner’s claims, we “will vacate the . . . judgment without prejudice and
remand the case for consideration of all remaining claims.” Clisby, 960 F.2d at
938.
Neither the magistrate judge nor the district court addressed Blackburn’s
claims regarding Haas’s representation of her leading up to her trial. For this
reason, Clisby dictates that we vacate without prejudice the judgment of the district
court and remand the case for consideration of Blackburn’s claims for relief listed
above.2
VACATED AND REMANDED.
2
We accordingly do not address Blackburn’s arguments regarding the district court’s
denial of her claims against Murray on the merits.
4