Florida state prisoner Malcolm Fleming, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for federal habeas relief, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. After review, we vacate and remand this case to the district court.
I. BACKGROUND
Fleming filed a § 2254 petition raising the following four claims: (1) Fleming’s conviction was obtained through an unlawfully induced, involuntary guilty plea for a *970variety of reasons; (2) Fleming was denied effective assistance of counsel at various stages of his state court proceedings; (3) the state trial court violated the separation-of-powers doctrine by threatening Fleming with a life sentence as a habitual violent felony offender before the state had filed a notice seeking the sentencing enhancement, suggesting that the judge was biased; and (4) Fleming’s due process rights were violated, inter alia, when the state trial court neglected to inform Fleming of his right to a direct appeal and failed to give a full and fair hearing on Fleming’s motion for post-conviction relief.
In denying Fleming’s § 2254 petition, the district court distilled Fleming’s four claims down to two issues. First, the district court noted that a claim that a defendant was not fully apprised of the consequences of his guilty plea or had pled guilty based on a false statement in the plea agreement implicates the Due Process Clause. On this basis, the district court concluded that Fleming’s separate due process claims merely reiterated his claims that his guilty plea was involuntary. The district court then addressed the merits of these due process claims and found that there was insufficient evidence that Fleming’s guilty plea was unlawfully induced or involuntary. Second, the district court addressed whether Fleming was denied effective assistance of counsel and again found insufficient evidence to suggest a violation of Fleming’s constitutional rights.
Fleming filed this appeal. We granted a certificate of appealability on the limited issue of “[wjhether the district court violated Clisby v. Jones, 960 F.2d 925, 936 (11th Cir.1992) (en banc), by failing to address all of the claims raised in appellant’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition?”
II. DISCUSSION
On appeal, Fleming argues that the district court did not address all of the claims raised in his § 2254 petition. In Clisby, we instructed the district courts to resolve all claims for relief raised in a petition for writ of habeas corpus prior to granting or denying relief. 960 F.2d at 936. We concluded that, when a district court fails to address all claims in the habeas petition, we “will vacate the district court’s judgment without prejudice and remand the case for consideration of all remaining claims.” Id. at 938.1
Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the district court failed to address two of Fleming’s due process claims. The district court’s order sought to answer only whether Fleming’s conviction was obtained through an unlawfully induced, involuntary guilty plea and failed to consider alleged due process violations that occurred after Fleming entered his plea. Namely, the district court did not address whether Fleming’s due process rights were violated (1) when the state court allegedly failed to notify him of his right to file a direct appeal or (2) when the state court allegedly failed to provide a full and fair hearing on Fleming’s motion for post-conviction relief.
Because the district court did not address the merits of these two claims, we vacate the judgment and remand the remaining claims for consideration by the district court.2
VACATED AND REMANDED.