Frank Rafael Enriquez v. Florida Parole Commission

Eleventh Circuit

Frank Rafael Enriquez v. Florida Parole Commission

227 F. App'x 836

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedMay 31, 2007

Docket05-17009

StatusUnpublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 227 F. App'x 836 (Frank Rafael Enriquez v. Florida Parole Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frank Rafael Enriquez v. Florida Parole Commission, 227 F. App'x 836 (11th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Without requiring an answer from the respondents, the district court summarily dismissed the federal habeas petition in this case on Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), *837 grounds. A petition should be dismissed without requiring an answer only “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Fed. Hab. R. 4; see also Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-76, 97 S.Ct. 1621, 1630, 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (1977). Construing the petition liberally, as we are required to do because it was filed pro se, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), we cannot say that the Younger issue is simple enough that the petition did not deserve the greater attention that would have come in non-summary proceedings.

It also appears from the respondents’ two briefs in this Court that there may be other defenses that they wish to raise, if given a chance to plead them, and that those defenses, or even a decision on the merits, may provide a more clear cut resolution than the one the district court chose without the benefit of a response to the petition. We cannot say for sure because the record at this stage is skimpy, the petition is ambiguous in several key respects, and we do not have the benefit of a fuller treatment of the various issues by the district court. Finally, since this case left the district court an Assistant Federal Public Defender has undertaken to represent the petitioner, and a decision at the district court level will benefit from her able assistance. An amendment to clarify the petition would be a good first step.

For these reasons, we vacate the district court’s order summarily dismissing the habeas petition and remand the case for further proceedings and a fuller treatment of the case. In doing so, we neither express nor imply any view about the proper resolution of the Younger issue or any other issue that arises from any amendment to the petition or from the respondents’ answer.

VACATED AND REMANDED. 1

1

. This case was originally scheduled for oral argument, but it was decided without argument pursuant to 11th Cir. R. 34 — 3(f).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Without requiring an answer from the respondents, the district court summarily dismissed the federal habeas petition in this case on Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), *837 grounds. A petition should be dismissed without requiring an answer only “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Fed. Hab. R. 4; see also Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-76, 97 S.Ct. 1621, 1630, 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (1977). Construing the petition liberally, as we are required to do because it was filed pro se, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), we cannot say that the Younger issue is simple enough that the petition did not deserve the greater attention that would have come in non-summary proceedings.

It also appears from the respondents’ two briefs in this Court that there may be other defenses that they wish to raise, if given a chance to plead them, and that those defenses, or even a decision on the merits, may provide a more clear cut resolution than the one the district court chose without the benefit of a response to the petition. We cannot say for sure because the record at this stage is skimpy, the petition is ambiguous in several key respects, and we do not have the benefit of a fuller treatment of the various issues by the district court. Finally, since this case left the district court an Assistant Federal Public Defender has undertaken to represent the petitioner, and a decision at the district court level will benefit from her able assistance. An amendment to clarify the petition would be a good first step.

For these reasons, we vacate the district court’s order summarily dismissing the habeas petition and remand the case for further proceedings and a fuller treatment of the case. In doing so, we neither express nor imply any view about the proper resolution of the Younger issue or any other issue that arises from any amendment to the petition or from the respondents’ answer.

VACATED AND REMANDED. 1

1

. This case was originally scheduled for oral argument, but it was decided without argument pursuant to 11th Cir. R. 34 — 3(f).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 F. App'x 836, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-rafael-enriquez-v-florida-parole-commission-ca11-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack