Opinion
No. 19-15005
09-17-2020
TAYLOR JORDAN WARDLOW, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee.
[DO NOT PUBLISH] Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket Nos. 0:18-cv-60488-PCH; 0:15-cr-60025-CMA-1 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida Before WILSON, JILL PRYOR, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:
Taylor Wardlow, a federal prisoner, appeals from the district court's denial of his motion to vacate his convictions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He argues, and the government agrees, that the district court violated Clisby v. Jones, 960 F.2d 925, 936-37 (11th Cir. 1992) (en banc), by failing to address all four of his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
We have said that a district court must resolve all claims for relief raised in a § 2255 motion, regardless of whether relief is granted or denied. Rhode v. United States, 583 F.3d 1289, 1291-92 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam); see Clisby, 960 F.2d at 936 (addressing a § 2254 petition) . And we have said that when a district court fails to consider every claim raised in a § 2255 motion and dismisses, "we will vacate the judgment without prejudice and remand the case for consideration of all the remaining claims." See Dupree v. Warden, 715 F.3d 1295, 1298 (11th Cir. 2013) (addressing a § 2254 petition). We do not address whether an underlying claim is meritorious. Id. at 1299.
In this context, a "claim for relief" is defined as "any allegation of a constitutional violation." Clisby, 960 F.2d at 936. Allegations of distinct constitutional violations constitute separate claims for relief, even if the allegations arise from the same operative facts. Id. Ineffective assistance of counsel constitutes a violation of a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights, and, thus, is a claim of a constitutional violation. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 685-86 (1984).
With all that in mind, this is a pretty straightforward case. Wardlow raised four distinct allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, each of which was an alleged constitutional violation and therefore its own claim for relief. See Rhode, 583 F.3d at 1291-92; Clisby, 960 F.2d at 936; Strickland, 466 U.S. at 686. The district court did not meaningfully address three of Wardlow's four ineffective-assistance claims at the evidentiary hearing or in any of its orders. It follows then that the district court's denial of Wardlow's § 2255 motion was in violation of Rhode and Clisby. We therefore vacate and remand for the district court to consider the rest of Wardlow's ineffective-assistance claims.
VACATED AND REMANDED.