Randall Dale Watson v. Warden Victor L. Walker, No. 08-16725 (11th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 08-16725 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT OCTOBER 14, 2009 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK D. C. Docket No. 07-00063-CV-4 RANDALL DALE WATSON, Petitioner-Appellant, versus WARDEN VICTOR L. WALKER, Respondent-Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia _________________________ (October 14, 2009) Before MARCUS, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Randall Dale Watson, a Georgia state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court s dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254. The district court denied the petition because Watson failed to appeal the denial of his state habeas petition to the Georgia Supreme Court and thus, his claims were unexhausted and procedurally barred. We granted a certificate of appealability ( COA ) on only the following issue: Whether Ga. Sup. Ct. R. 40, as amended, has any affect on this Court s holding in Pope v. Rich, 358 F.3d 852, 854 (11th Cir. 2004) that a Georgia prisoner must file an application for a certificate of probable cause with the Georgia Supreme Court challenging the denial of his state habeas petition in order to exhaust his state remedies and thereby avoid a procedural default. On appeal, Watson exclusively argues the merits of his underlying federal constitutional claims without addressing the exhaustion issue upon which the COA was granted. When reviewing a district court s denial of a habeas petition, we review questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact de novo, and findings of fact for clear error. Mancill v. Hall, 545 F.3d 935, 939 (11th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). [I]n an appeal brought by an unsuccessful habeas petitioner, appellate review is limited to the issues specified in the COA. Murray v. United States, 145 F.3d 1249, 1251 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). Moreover, if a habeas petitioner fails to address an issue on appeal, that petitioner is generally deemed to have 2 abandoned the matter. See Atkins v. Singletary, 965 F.2d 952, 955 n.1 (11th Cir. 1992) (noting that a habeas petitioner abandons a claim by failing to address it on appeal). Because Watson failed to address the sole issue presented in the COA, he has abandoned the matter. As our appellate review is limited to the issues specified the COA, we therefore affirm the district court s dismissal of Watson s habeas petition. AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
