USCA11 Case: 24-11507 Document: 13-1 Date Filed: 09/10/2024 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-11507 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ LINDA MICHAEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus GOVERNOR OF FLORIDA,

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 4:24-cv-00057-WS-MAF ____________________ USCA11 Case: 24-11507 Document: 13-1 Date Filed: 09/10/2024 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 24-11507

Before JORDAN, GRANT, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Linda Michael appeals the district court’s order dismissing her pro se civil rights complaint, filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Her complaint alleged that her life sentence, imposed by a Florida court for the crime of second-degree murder, was unconstitutional. She also alleged that Florida Governor Ron DeSantis violated her con- stitutional rights by denying her request for clemency, thereby en- forcing her unconstitutional sentence.

We affirm the dismissal of Michael’s complaint for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Her challenges to the validity or duration of her state sentence of imprisonment must be raised in a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; they are not cognizable in a § 1983 action. 1 See Hutcherson v. Riley, 468 F.3d 750, 754 (11th Cir. 2006).

To the extent that Michael’s complaint included a due pro- cess challenge to Florida’s clemency procedures—a claim that is cognizable under § 1983—she abandoned that claim by omitting it from her brief on appeal. See Barwick v. Governor of Florida, 66 F.4th 896, 900–02 (11th Cir. 2023); Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 We note that Michael has already filed a § 2254 petition, which the district court considered and denied on the merits in 2003. Michael v. Moore, No. 2:02- cv-14056, (S.D. Fla. Dec. 18, 2003). The claims raised in her current § 1983 complaint do not meet the requirements for a second or successive federal habeas petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

USCA11 Case: 24-11507 Document: 13-1 Date Filed: 09/10/2024 Page: 3 of 3

24-11507 Opinion of the Court 3 (11th Cir. 2008). And in any event, clemency procedures that “do no more than confirm that the clemency and pardon powers are committed, as is our tradition, to the authority of the executive” do not violate due process. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. v. Woodard, 523 U.S. 272, 276 (1998).

AFFIRMED.