Hakeem Sultaana's Petition against Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, Exercises of Law

Download Hakeem Sultaana's Petition against Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and more Exercises Law in PDF only on Docsity! No. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IN RE: HAKEEM SULTAANA P.O. Box 120 Lebanon, Ohio 45036 ON PETITION FOR AN EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION PERTAINING TO THE SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CASE NO. 2018-3425 PETITION FOR AN EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION Hakeern Sultaana, pro se 501 Thompson Rd. America Conneaut, Ohio 44030 Petitioner Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals of United States of 100 E. Fifth St. Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Respondent TABLE OF CONTENTS SULTAANA EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION CLAIMS ...................................................................1 RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS .............................................2 STATEMENT WHY RELIEF SOUGHT IS NOT AVAILABLE IN ANY OTHER COURT...............................................................................................................4 WRIT AND PROHIBITION PETITION ..................................................7 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .............................................................8 CONCLUSION.............................................................................17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................18 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .....................................................19 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED §TATES SULTAANA EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION CLAIMS. PETITIONER HAKEEM SULTAANA'S RELIEF CLAIM ONE Sultaana requests this Court to compel the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to review its jurisdiction authority pursuant to title 28 U.S.C. § 1291 in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Case Number 2018-3425 while ordering the court to vacate its August 20, 2018 for lack of jurisdiction reason. PETITIONER HAKEEM SIJLTAANA'S RELIEF CLAIM TWO Sultaana request this Court to prohibit the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States from reviewing any district court order from the Northern District Court of Ohio until all claims are resolved and a final order is filed pursuant to Federal Civil Rule 54 and 58 pertaining to Sultaana's habeas corpus proceedings in the Ohio Northern District Court Case Number 2016- CV-02884 1iPage RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS 28 U.S.CODE § 1291,28 USCS §1651 (a), FED. CIV. R. 54(b), and FED CIV. R. 58 28 U.S. Code §1291 reads in full - § 1291. Final decisions of district courts The courts of appeals (other than the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States, the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone, the District Court of Guam, and the District Court of the Virgin Islands, except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court. The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall be limited to the jurisdiction described in sections 1292(c) and (d) and 1295 of this title [28 USCS §.§ 1292(c) and (d) and 1295]. 28 U.S. Code §1651. The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law. Federal Civil Rule 54(b) reads in full - Judgment on Multiple Claims or Involving Multiple Parties. When an action presents more than one claim for relief—whether as a claim, counterclaim, or third-party claim—or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay. Otherwise, any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does 2Page - not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities. Federal Civil Rule 58 - (a) Separate Document. Every judgment and amended judgment must be set out in a separate document, but a separate document is not required for an order disposing of a motion: for judgment under Rule 50(b); to amend or make additional findings under Rule 52(b); for attorney's fees under Rule 54; for a new trial, or to alter or amend the judgment, under Rule 59; or for relief under Rule 60. (b) Entering Judgment. (1) Without the Court's Direction. Subject to Rule 54(b) and unless the court orders otherwise, the clerk must, without awaiting the court's direction, promptly prepare, sign, and enter the judgment when: the jury returns a general verdict; the court awards only costs or a sum certain; or the court denies all relief. (2) Court's Approval Required. Subject to Rule 54(b), the court must promptly approve the form of the judgment, which the clerk must promptly enter, when: the jury returns a special verdict or a general verdict with answers to written questions; or the court grants other relief not described in this subdivision (b). 3IPage system. This amounts to the purpose of habeas corpus actions brought pursuant to 2254 being ignored and nullified off the strength ministers of justice are not addressing a petitioner's claims brought in a habeas corpus action according to all rules governing habeas corpus and federal civil rules of procedures. If Sultaana cannot file anything in the district court informing the district court, claims remain pending in his habeas corpus petition while the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is side stepping the issues of its jurisdiction and Sultaana's timely amended claims, then this will amount to other issues involving successive petitions and leaving Sultaana falsely imprisoned longer. Moreso, summing up to adequate relief cannot be obtained in the district or appellate court at this juncture. 6IPage WRIT AND PROHIBITION PETITION Petitioner, Hakeem Sultaana, herein referred to as Sultaana, moves pursuant to U.S.C. §1651 (a), by requesting this Court to use its discretionary powers to grant Sultaana a writ to compel the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to review its jurisdiction in its case number 2018-3425 since Sultaana's timely amended claims in his habeas corpus remain pending in the Ohio Northern District Court Case Number 2016-CV-02884, while writ is sought to vacate the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals' August 20, 2018 judgment void order via usurpage of jurisdiction by the Sixth Circuit. Sultaana also requests a writ to prohibit the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals from obtaining jurisdiction pursuant to title 28 U.S.C. § 1291 until the Ohio Northern District Court adjudicate all of Sultaana's claims or files certification pursuant to Federal Civil Rule 54(b). 7IPage STATEMENT OF THE CASE Up to date, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has usurped jurisdiction pertaining to Sultaana's habeas corpus case in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals case number 208-3425 while also filing a void order on August 20, 2018, without authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to file any order, denying Sultaana a certificate of appealability.3 On November 29, 2016, Sultaana re-filed his habeas corpus petition in the district court after the Sixth Circuit denied Sultaana's en banc request. On December 13, 2016 and December 30, 2016 Sultaana timely amended his habeas corpus petition with additional claims that included Sultaana was denied his U.S. Constitutional right to appellate counsel .4 On February 13, 2017 respondent filed its motion to dismiss without addressing Sultaana's amended claims. Over a year later on April 4, 2018 the district court Magistrate Judge filed his report and recommendation, without addressing Sultaana's amended claims (See Exhibit/Appendix D), Sultaana promptly objected. On April 26, 2018 the district court filed an order and opinion under the title Sultaana v. Sloan dismissing Sultaana's petition with prejudice without addressing Sultaana's timely amended claims made pursuant to Federal Civil Rule 15. In addition, the district court filed in its order an alarming unconstitutional notice Currently Sultaana has a pending motion for panel rehearing/en banc in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals case number 2018-3425 addressing the Court's jurisdiction. (Exhibit) "Filed as document #s 5 and 45 in the Northern District Court Case No. 2016-CV-02884 Sultaana v Sloan 8IPage correspondence from the court and requesting him to address Sultaana's motion to dismiss using the prison mailbox rule. (See Exhibit/Appendix H) Thereafter, Sultaana filed a panel rehearing motion and en banc request informing the court that the court was without jurisdiction to issue the August 20, 2018 order.9 (See Exhibit/Appendix I) On August 6, 2018 the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Sultaana's mandamus petition in which Sultaana requested the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to give an order to the District Court to adjudicate Sultaana's pending claims. CONTROLLING CASE LAW This Court held in Cheney v United States Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367— As writ of mandamus is one of the most potent weapons in the judicial arsenal, three conditions must be satisfied, under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1651(a), before the writ properly may issue against a lower federal court: (1) the petitioner seeking the writ's issuance must have no other adequate means to attain the relief which the petitioner desires (a condition designed to insure that the writ will not be used as a substitute for the regular appeals process); (2) the petitioner must satisfy the burden of showing that the petitioner's right to the writ's issuance is clear and indisputable; and (3) even if the first two prerequisites have been met, then the issuing court, in the exercise of its discretion, must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances. These hurdles, however demanding, are not insuperable. * Also see Kerr v United States Court for Northern Dist. Of Cal., 426 U.S. 394, 403, 48 L.Ed. 2d 725, 96 S. Ct. 2119. Currently Sultaana's en banc request and panel rehearing motion has been unopposed and is still pending. lilPage Sultaana asserts the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction in its case number 2018-3425 via appeal from the Ohio Northern District Court April 26, 2018 order since timely amended claims remain in Sultaana's habeas corpus pettion. (Case Number 2016-CV-02884) Sultaana asserts he has no other adequate means to attain the relief to have this Court compel the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to examine its adjudication pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and vacate the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals August 20, 2018 order via lack of jurisdiction. Sultaana asserts by the Ohio Northern District Court giving the district court clerk of court not to accept any filing from Sultaana negates Sultaana the right to file a motion to have the district court adjudicate Sultaana's timely amended claims that remain pending. (see Exhibit/Appendix A) Sultaana asserts when he filed a mandamus to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals seeking the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to give an order to the district court to adjudicate Sultaana's pending timely amended claims for jurisdiction purposes and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ignored Sultaana's mandamus request and filed an order not discussing Sultaana's mandamus petition request demonstrates relief cannot be attained. (see Exhibit/Appendix B) Sultaana asserts when he filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on August 19, 2018 via mailbox rule and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals filing 12 1 P a g e Sultaana's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction after the Sixth Circuit filed its order on August 20, 2018 denying Sultaana a certificate of appealability and thereafter; informing Sultaana the court would not consider Sultaana's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction demonstrates there is no other adequate means to attain Sultaana's relief to have the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals examine its jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Sultaana asserts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 he has a clear and indisputable right to this writ request because the Ohio Northern District Court's April 26, 2018 order is not a final appealable order since claims remain pending in the district court. Sultaana asserts more importantly, the district courts April 26, 2018 order does not have Federal Civil Rule 54(b) certification that is required for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to obtain jurisdiction. (see Exhibit/ApeØndix A) Sultaana asserts with claims still pending in his habeas corpus action and with no Federal Civil Rule 54(b) certification on the district court's April 26, 2018 the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has usurped jurisdiction over Sultaana's appeal in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals venue since the record confirms Sultaana challenged the Sixth Circuit Court's jurisdiction, that went unopposed, but the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has ignored. (see Exhibit/Appendix G) Now Sultaana hereby gives this Court's case law on title 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and federal Rule 54(b) - l3lPage - went unopposed but the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals refuse to examine its jurisdiction. Under federal practice, extraordinary writs are reserved for really extraordinary causes, and then only to confine inferior court to lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so. Platt v 3M(1964) 376 U.S. 240, 84 S. Ct. 769, 11 L. Ed. 2d 674 (superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in United States ex rel. Vuitton Et Fils S. A. v Karen Bags, Inc. (1984, SD NY) 592 F Supp 73 4) and (criticized in United States vBankas (2005, WD Wis) 2005 US Dist. LEXIS 19637). Now Sultaana also requests this Court to prohibit the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals from obtaining jurisdiction to review any district court order denying Sultaana' s petition for habeas corpus until the district court makes a final order pursuant to Federal Rule 54(b) or adjudicate all of Sultaana's claims. 16Page CONCLUSION With all the above mentioned facts, this Court must grant this extraordinary writ on an issue that is not complex pertaining to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals jurisdiction authority mandated under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and the surrounding factors, that hinder Sultaana from attaining the relief sought in this petition from any other court. Sultaana has attached the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals docket case number 2018-3424 mandamus petition for support and his emergency motion to address his amended claims filed in his mandamus petition that was directed to the district court. (see Exhibit/Appendix J) Hakeem Sultaana P.O. Box 120 Lebanon, Ohio 45036 17 1 P a g e