UNITED STATES v. VALHUERDIS (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.2021-05-06No. No. 20-14271

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the denial of Valhuerdis's motion to compel and dismissed as moot the motion to stay the briefing schedule.

Jorge Valhuerdis, a federal prisoner acting without counsel, appealed the trial court's denial of his motion requiring his trial lawyer to provide a copy of his criminal case record. The government requested summary affirmance, arguing that Valhuerdis had forfeited his challenge by failing to adequately raise the issue in his appellate brief. Although courts typically interpret pro se briefs generously, Valhuerdis did not meaningfully address or contest the denied motion in his written submission to the court. The appellate court found the government's position clearly correct as a matter of law with no genuine dispute about how the case should be decided.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a pro se appellant abandons an issue by failing to address it in an appellate brief
Whether trial counsel must provide a copy of the criminal case record
Applicability of liberal construction of pro se briefs

Procedural posture

A federal prisoner appealed pro se the denial of his motion to compel trial counsel to supply a criminal case record.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Jorge Valhuerdis, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the denial of his motion to compel trial counsel to supply a copy of the criminal case record. The government moves for a summary affirmance and to stay the briefing schedule. The government argues that Valhuerdis has abandoned any argument that he could have made challenging the denial of his motion. “[W]e read briefs filed by pro se litigants liberally,” but Valhuerdis fails to mention, let alone contest the denial of, his motion to compel in his brief on appeal, so we deem that issue abandoned. See Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). Because the “position [of the United States] ․ is clearly right as a matter of law so that there [is] no substantial question as to the outcome of the case,” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), we grant the motion for summary affirmance and dismiss as moot the motion to stay the briefing schedule.

We AFFIRM the denial of Valhuerdiss motion to compel, and we DISMISS as moot the motion to stay the briefing schedule.

PER CURIAM: