Was the Ninth Circuit's affirmance of the dismissal based on issue preclusion in violation of Manuel v. City of Joliet?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED. Petitioner’s case was wrongly affirmed by the Ninth Circuit for reasons of issue preclusion, despite the fact that Manuel v. City of Joliet, 137 S. Ct. 911, 919-920, and fn. 8 (2017), allows the District Court to review a lack of probable cause after the criminal : court found probable cause at Petitioner’s Preliminary Hearing, despite the fact he was later found not guilty by an all-White Jury. The Petitioner’s complaining witness was his estranged wife, a drug addict, who bit Petitioner on the lip first, a fact that was not disclosed until the third and last day of his criminal trial in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 3 S. Ct. 1194; 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963). This Court also ; summarily reversed the case of Sanders v. Jones, 845 F.3d 721, 733-735, and fn. 7 (a Cir. 2017), Certiorari granted and summarily rev'd on Jan. 8, 2018, where the Sixth Circuit also wrongly affirmed because the plaintiff in that case was indicted before a Grand Jury before her criminal case was dismissed. Petitioner presents the following questions: 1. Was the Ninth Circuit in conflict with now, the Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits, and the California Court of Appeal, First and Sixth Appellate Districts when the Ninth Circuit affirmed the Dismissal based on issue preclusion in violation of Manuel v. City of Joliet, 137 8. Ct. 911, 9197 920, and fn. 8 (2017), when Petitioner was deprived of his evidence that was . truthful, and under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 3 S. Ct. 1194; 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963)? : 2. Was the Ninth Circuit in conflict with this Court’s Decisions in Leatherman v. . Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U. S. 163, oO 113 S.Ct. 1160, 122 L.Ed.2d 517 (1993), and Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (l 957), when Petitioner properly pleaded his Second Amended Complaint? It iil . Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Cotton v. County of San Bernardino 2 3. Was the Ninth Circuit in conflict with this Court’s Decision in Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 275-76 (1993), when the Respondents withheld evidence under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 3 S. Ct. 1194; 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963), which is a law enforcement function? 4, Was the Ninth Circuit in conflict with this Court’s Decision in Tower v. Glover, 467 U.S. 914, 922-923 (1984), where Petitioner’s Public Defenders acted in conspiracy with the District Attorney to plead Petitioner as “guilty” when he protested his innocence during the 11-month period of his criminal case? 5. Did the District Court misstated facts in Petitioner’s criminal case when Petitioner used self-defense after he was bitten by his estranged wife? 6. Was Petitioner’s Second Amended Complaint still should be subjected to another amendment when amending the Complaint would not be futile? 7. Should the Hon. Virginia A. Phillips, the Chief District Judge in the case below, be disqualified from hearing this case after remand? Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Cotton v. County of San Bemardino 3