[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-14513 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JULY 15, 2011
D. C. Docket No. 4:08-cv-00120-CDL
ZACHARY BOUVIER TAYLOR,
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia
(July 15, 2011)
Before EDMONDSON, MARCUS and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
Zachary Bouvier Taylor, a Georgia prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the
dismissal of his habeas corpus petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, as second or successive
and for failure to pay the requisite filing fee or request leave to proceed in forma
pauperis ("IFP"). We granted Taylor a certificate of appealability ("COA") on the
following issues only:
(1) Whether the district court erred in concluding that appellant's
28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, filed in March 2010, was second or
successive within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2).
(2) Whether the district court erred in dismissing with prejudice
appellant's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for failure to pay the filing fee
or submit a certified copy of his prison trust account statement, absent
findings that appellant's conduct was willful or that lesser sanctions
would be inadequate to correct such conduct.
On appeal, Taylor proceeds pro se and argues that the district court erred by
denying his request that state officials be enjoined from medicating him, stating
that various medical officials at Valdosta State Prison have been medicating him
in violation of his religious beliefs. He requested that we grant him habeas relief
with respect to his conviction and order his immediate release from prison.
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L.
No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996), appellate review is limited to the issues
specified in the COA. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Murray v. United States, 145 F.3d 1249
1250-51 (11th Cir. 1998). Although we read pro se briefs liberally, "issues not
[End Page 2]
briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned." Timson v.
Sampson, 518 F.3d 870
, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted).
Careful review of Taylor's appellate brief reveals that he has not addressed
the issues on which the COA was granted, namely whether the district court erred
in dismissing his petition as second or successive and, alternatively, for failing to
pay the court filing fee. His only reference to the issues raised in the COA appears
to be his statement that his petition was dismissed pursuant to § 2244(b)(1) and
(b)(3). Instead, Taylor argues that the district court should have granted his
request for injunctive relief, and requests that this Court grant him habeas relief,
based on the merits of his claims. Therefore, Taylor has abandoned the issue on
which we granted the COA. See Atkins v. Singletary, 965 F.2d 952
, 955 n.1 (11th
Cir. 1992) (concluding that a counseled § 2254 appellant abandons issues not
addressed on appeal); see also Timson, 518 F.3d at 874. Moreover, because we do
not address issues not indicated in the COA, we do not consider claims related to
the denial of injunctive relief or the merits of his petition. Murray, 145 F.3d at
1250-51. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's dismissal of Taylor's § 2254
[End Page 3]