Harry McCray v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al, No. 15-10649 (11th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-10649 Date Filed: 08/31/2016 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 15-10649 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 0:14-cv-62864-WPD HARRY MCCRAY, Petitioner-Appellant, versus SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondents-Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (August 31, 2016) Before HULL, JORDAN and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 15-10649 Date Filed: 08/31/2016 Page: 2 of 3 Harry McCray, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his § 2254 habeas corpus petition for failure to satisfy the “in custody” requirement for federal habeas jurisdiction and for being time-barred. A certificate of appealability (“COA”) was granted on the following two issues: (1) Whether the district court’s procedural ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the § 2254 petition with respect to the civil commitment claim was correct. (2) Whether the district court’s procedural ruling that the § 2254 petition was untimely was correct. On appeal, McCray reiterates his substantive challenges to his 2006 convictions, including his claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, that his counsel had a conflict of interest, and that the jury instructions regarding his counts of conviction were deficient. He does not address the issues articulated in the COA. We review de novo a district court’s decision to dismiss a habeas petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Diaz v. Fla. Fourth Judicial Circuit ex rel. Duval Cnty., 683 F.3d 1261, 1263 (11th Cir. 2012). The scope of review in a habeas appeal is limited to the issues specified in the COA. Murray v. United States, 145 F.3d 1249, 1250 (11th Cir. 1998). Although we read pro se briefs liberally, issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). 2 Case: 15-10649 Date Filed: 08/31/2016 Page: 3 of 3 Because McCray’s appellate brief does not address either of the two issues specified in the COA, those issues have been abandoned, and his substantive arguments on appeal about his 2006 convictions cannot be considered. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of McCray’s § 2254 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.
