Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Nathaniel Griggs v. Commissioner, Georgia Department of Corrections, 11th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of Nathaniel Griggs's § 2254 habeas corpus petition raising four claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The district court committed a Clisby error by failing to address two ineffective assistance claims raised in an amendment to Griggs's petition, as required by Clisby v. Jones. The appellate court remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings to consider the two unaddressed claims.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-01-28 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-10737

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of Nathaniel Griggs's § 2254 habeas corpus petition raising four claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The district court committed a Clisby error by failing to address two ineffective assistance claims raised in an amendment to Griggs's petition, as required by Clisby v. Jones. The appellate court remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings to consider the two unaddressed claims.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    3 views2 pages

    Nathaniel Griggs v. Commissioner, Georgia Department of Corrections, 11th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of Nathaniel Griggs's § 2254 habeas corpus petition raising four claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The district court committed a Clisby error by failing to address two ineffective assistance claims raised in an amendment to Griggs's petition, as required by Clisby v. Jones. The appellate court remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings to consider the two unaddressed claims.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    Case: 14-10737

    Date Filed: 01/28/2015

    Page: 1 of 2

    [DO NOT PUBLISH]

    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 14-10737
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 4:13-cv-00157-CDL

    NATHANIEL GRIGGS,
    Petitioner-Appellant,
    versus
    WARDEN, et al.,
    Respondents,
    COMMISSIONER, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
    WARDEN,
    Respondents-Appellees.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Georgia
    ________________________
    (January 28, 2015)

    Case: 14-10737

    Date Filed: 01/28/2015

    Page: 2 of 2

    Before TJOFLAT, WILSON, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

    PER CURIAM:

    Nathaniel Griggs appeals the dismissal of his pro se 28 U.S.C. 2254


    petition raising four claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Given
    our instructions set out in Clisby v. Jones, 960 F.2d 925 (11th Cir. 1992), the
    district court committed a Clisby error by not addressing two ineffective assistance
    claims raised in an amendment to Griggss petition. Accordingly, we vacate the
    dismissal of Griggss petition, without prejudice, and remand for further
    proceedings.
    VACATED AND REMANDED.

    You might also like