John D. Dupree v. Warden, Attorney General, State of Alabama
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9211
| 11th Cir. | 2013Background
- Dupree, represented by counsel, pleaded guilty in Alabama state court to drug-related offenses in 2004 and was sentenced to 30 years.
- Dupree later alleged ineffective assistance of counsel by two attorneys, Granger and Bone, in a pro se federal §2254 petition.
- The petition attached a memorandum; two-sentence Bone-related claims were not addressed by the magistrate judge.
- The magistrate judge’s report did address Granger but not Bone; Dupree did not object to the omission and the district court adopted the report.
- This court held that Clisby v. Jones required addressing all claims; failure to address Bone violated Clisby, necessitating vacatur and remand.
- The court reviewed de novo the legal question of the Clisby violation but limited merits consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court violate Clisby by failing to address Bone's claim? | Dupree presented Bone claim via attached memorandum; failure to address it violated Clisby. | Bone claim was not raised in the district court pleadings in a clear form. | Yes; vacate and remand for Bone claim consideration. |
| Should Nettles be overruled and a new rule adopted re failure to object? | Adopt rule attaching consequences to failure to object to factual and legal conclusions. | Maintain current rule; objections are not mandatory for review. | Court proposes adopting a rule, with prospective effect, to attach consequences for failure to object. |
| May the court review unobjected issues under plain error or de novo standards? | Unobjected issues should be reviewed for plain error or de novo where appropriate. | Limit review to issues properly raised and preserved. | Yes; de novo for legal conclusions, plain error/manifest injustice for unobjected factual findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Clisby v. Jones, 960 F.2d 925 (11th Cir. 1992) (require district courts to address all claims in §2254 petitions)
- Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982) (waiver rule for objections; review limited to plain error for unobjected findings)
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (approval of a supervisory-rule allowing waiver consequences for failure to object)
- Douglass v. United Serv. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (overruled Nettles; adopted rule limiting review of unobjected issues)
- Rhode v. United States, 583 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2009) (pro se pleading contains claims described in attached memorandum)