Joseph Scott Freeman v. Secretary, Department of Corrections
679 F. App'x 982
11th Cir.2017Background
- Petitioner Joseph Freeman, a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition.
- District court dismissed the petition as time‑barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) and found Freeman was not entitled to equitable tolling.
- A certificate of appealability (COA) was granted limited to whether the district court erred in denying equitable tolling in light of Thomas v. Attorney General, Fla.
- On appeal Freeman’s brief primarily argued the merits of his underlying § 2254 claims, and did not develop an argument that he was entitled to equitable tolling or address Thomas.
- The panel reviewed timeliness and equitable tolling de novo and applied liberal construction for pro se briefs, but will not act as counsel or consider issues not raised on appeal.
- The court concluded Freeman abandoned the COA issue by failing to argue it on appeal and therefore affirmed the district court’s denial of the § 2254 petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court erred by denying equitable tolling under the standard in Thomas | Freeman invoked the COA but did not brief or argue entitlement to equitable tolling or address Thomas | Respondent and district court treated petition as untimely and not subject to equitable tolling | Freeman abandoned the issue on appeal by failing to brief it; court affirms dismissal |
| Whether appellate court may consider claims outside the COA | Freeman raised merits of § 2254 claims on appeal | Court and respondent argued COA limits appellate review | Court refused to consider merits beyond COA scope |
| Whether pro se status excuses failure to argue COA issue | Freeman’s pro se status noted; asserted errors but did not develop equitable tolling argument | Court: pro se briefs are liberally construed but not a substitute for counsel | Pro se status did not save unbriefed issue; abandonment applies |
| Whether appellate court will expand COA sua sponte | Freeman did not request expansion or present arguments supporting expansion | Respondent and court declined expansion absent presented argument | Court did not expand COA and therefore did not reach merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Att’y Gen., Fla., 795 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2015) (equitable tolling standard for § 2254)
- Hepburn v. Moore, 215 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2000) (de novo review of timeliness dismissal)
- Cadet v. Fla. Dep’t of Corrs., 742 F.3d 473 (11th Cir. 2014) (de novo review of equitable tolling application)
- Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870 (11th Cir. 2008) (liberal construction of pro se briefs)
- Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287 (11th Cir. 2009) (COA limits appellate consideration)
- Greenbriar, Ltd. v. City of Alabaster, 881 F.2d 1570 (11th Cir. 1989) (mere mention without argument is abandonment)