Abdul Rashid Isaac v. Warden, 11th Cir. (2015)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsAbdul Rashid Isaac v. Warden, 11th Cir. (2015)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsCase: 14-12234
Date Filed: 03/19/2015
Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-12234
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:10-cv-00252-CAR
ABDUL RASHID ISAAC,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
WARDEN,
ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF GEORGIA,
Respondents-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
________________________
(March 19, 2015)
Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 14-12234
Date Filed: 03/19/2015
Page: 2 of 3
Abdul Rashid Isaac, a Georgia prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the
district courts denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief from
his convictions for armed robbery, kidnapping with bodily injury, and kidnapping,
which resulted in a life sentence. We granted a certificate of appealability on the
issue of whether the district court failed to comply with our decision in Clisby v.
Jones, 960 F.3d 925, 936 (11th Cir. 1992) (en banc), when it did not address
Isaacs due process claim based on Garza v. State, 670 S.E.2d 73 (Ga. 2008). Isaac
argued in the district court that, under the rule announced in Garza, the state trial
courts failure to correctly instruct the jury on the kidnapping statute violated his
due process rights, including the right to fair warning that his specific
contemplated conduct is forbidden, depriving him of a fair trial. See Garza, 670
S.E.2d at 76 (alteration and quotation marks omitted). The district court did not
address that argument.
Clisby requires that a district court resolve all claims for relief raised in a
2254 petition, regardless of whether it grants or denies habeas relief. 960 F.2d at
936. Isaac therefore contends (and the state agrees) that the district court
committed Clisby error when it dismissed his 2254 petition without resolving
that Garza claim. He is correct. When a district court fails to address all of the
claims in a habeas petition, we will vacate the district courts judgment without
prejudice and remand the case for consideration of all remaining claims. Clisby,
2
Case: 14-12234
Date Filed: 03/19/2015
Page: 3 of 3
960 F.2d at 938. We therefore vacate and remand for further proceedings to
include the consideration of Isaacs Garza claim.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
