# Michael Lindsey v. Fred Smith, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, J.D. White, Warden Holman Unit

> Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · June 12, 1987 · 820 F.2d 1137

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9476297

## Case

- **Full name:** Michael LINDSEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Fred SMITH, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, J.D. White, Warden Holman Unit, Respondents-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- **Decided:** June 12, 1987
- **Citations:** 820 F.2d 1137; 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 7543
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Tjoflat
- **Judges:** Tjoflat, Vance, Kravitch
- **Cited by:** 113 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9476297

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that district court correctly applied state law procedural bar to petitioner's jury challenge, despite state court's failure to indicate that its denial of petition rested on procedural grounds, where petitioner never raised facially sufficient jury challenge before an…
- stating that any differences between the equal protection clause and the Sixth Amendment are “of no consequence” when a black appellant, who complained of peremptory strikes against black jurors, relies on the same facts for both his equal protection and Sixth Amendment claims…
- holding that a habeas petitioner who claims counsel should have followed a strategy that would have proven futile has not shown that, counsel’s performance was deficient

## Opinion text

TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge,
specially concurring:
Although I agree that our circuit precedent permits the majority to entertain the merits of petitioner’s claims, I write to object to our decisional law that permits the majority to entertain a district court order that does not dispose of all of the petitioner’s claims. The district court never ruled on one of petitioner’s claims. Ante at 1142 n. 7. The trial court thus erroneously entered a “final judgment,” which, by definition, purported to terminate the litigation in full. In my view, Supreme Court precedent, see Andrews v. United States, 373 U.S. 334, 340 , 83 S.Ct. 1236, 1240 , 10 L.Ed.2d 383 (1963); Collins v. Miller, 252 U.S. 364, 365 , 40 S.Ct. 347, 347 , 64 L.Ed. 616 (1920), renders a court of appeals powerless to review an order denying a writ of habeas corpus that does not dispose of all the claims that the petitioner presented. See Blake v. Kemp, 758 F.2d 523, 535-43 (11th Cir.) (Tjoflat, J., dissenting), ce rt. denied, — U.S.-, 106 S.Ct. 374 , 88 L.Ed.2d 367 (1985). Being bound, however, to follow our circuit precedent, I reach the merits of this appeal and concur in the majority’s disposition.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9476297. Public record. Not legal advice.