Joseph Scott Freeman v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

Case: 15-15740 Date Filed: 03/03/2017 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-15740
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:14-cv-00966-PGB-GJK
JOSEPH SCOTT FREEMAN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondents-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(March 3, 2017)
Before HULL, JORDAN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-15740 Date Filed: 03/03/2017 Page: 2 of 4
Joseph Freeman, a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, challenges the district
court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as time-barred after the
court determined that Freeman was not entitled to equitable tolling. A certificate
of appealability (“COA”) was granted on the issue of:
Whether, in dismissing Freeman’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ
of habeas corpus as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), the
district court erred in determining that Freeman was not entitled to
equitable tolling, in light of Thomas v. Att’y Gen., Fla., 795 F.3d
1286, 1293 (11th Cir. 2015)
On appeal, Freeman argues only the merits of his § 2254 petition.
We review de novo the district court’s denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition
as untimely. Hepburn v. Moore, 215 F.3d 1208, 1209 (11th Cir. 2000). We also
review de novo the district court’s application of equitable tolling law to the facts.
Cadet v. Fla. Dep’t of Corrs., 742 F.3d 473, 477 (11th Cir. 2014).
We liberally construe pro se briefs. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874
(11th Cir. 2008). However, in liberally construing a litigant’s arguments, we will
not act as de facto counsel. GJR Invs., Inc. v. County of Escambia, 132 F.3d 1359,
1369 (11th Cir. 1998), overruled on other grounds as recognized by Randall v.
Scott, 610 F.3d 701 (11th Cir. 2010). Therefore, arguments not raised on appeal,
even by pro se litigants, are deemed abandoned. Timson, 518 F.3d at 874; see also
Atkins v. Singletary, 965 F.2d 952, 955 n.1 (11th Cir. 1992) (concluding that an
appellant abandons an issue not addressed on appeal). The mere mention in an
2
Case: 15-15740 Date Filed: 03/03/2017 Page: 3 of 4
appellate brief that the district court was in error, absent any specific argument as
to how the court was in error, is insufficient to raise the issue on appeal. See
Greenbriar, Ltd. v. City of Alabaster, 881 F.2d 1570, 1573 n.6 (11th Cir. 1989)
(determining that an appellant abandoned a claim where it referred to an issue in its
statement of the case, but elaborated no arguments on the merits of the issue in its
brief).
The right to appeal the denial of a § 2254 petition is governed by 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c). Bell v. Att’y Gen. of Fla., 614 F.3d 1230, 1231 (11th Cir. 2010).
Section 2253(c) requires a petitioner to obtain a COA by making a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right, and the COA indicates which
specific issue justifies appellate review. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). If we have not
expanded a COA to include a claim made in a brief, we will not consider the claim.
Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1290 n.4 (11th Cir. 2009).
Even liberally construing his brief, Freeman abandoned the only issue
included in the COA: whether the district court erred in determining that Freeman
was not entitled to equitable tolling in light of the standard in Thomas. See
Timson, 518 F.3d at 874. The argument portion of Freeman’s brief centers on the
merits of the two claims he sought to raise in his § 2254 petition, and contains no
mention of the district court’s determination that he should not receive equitable
tolling. The only reference in Freeman’s brief to equitable tolling occurs when he
3
Case: 15-15740 Date Filed: 03/03/2017 Page: 4 of 4
discusses this Court’s COA in his procedural history. In that section, he notes that
we granted a COA, and then, in a footnote, restates the COA in the form of a
declarative statement instead of a question. Freeman does nothing to further
develop his argument, address the holding in Thomas, or assert that he is, in fact,
entitled to equitable tolling. Accordingly, he has abandoned this issue on appeal.
See Greenbriar, 881 F.2d at 1573 n.6. Moreover, we will not address the
arguments that Freeman does raise regarding the merits of his § 2254 petition,
because they fall outside the scope of the COA and we did not expand the COA to
include the issues. See Williams, 557 F.3d at 1290 n.4. Accordingly, we affirm
the district court’s denial of Freeman’s § 2254 petition.
AFFIRMED.
4