Was DAVIS improperly included?

Questions Presented Parties to Habeas / . 1. Was DAVIS improperly included? (5th.Cir.) : 2. Was PAXTON improperly dismissed? (W.D.Tex.) Electronic filing ‘ . 3. Did PITMAN abuse discretion in disallowing Perkins’s electronic filing? : : : Actual Innocence : 4, Is Perkins “actually innocent?” Certificate of Appealability , 5. Did the Fifth Cir. abuse discretion denying the . -” Certificate? . . 3 “ oo : Parties to Fifth Cir. Proceeding . Habeas Applicant/Appellant a WES PERKINS (pro se) ' Respondents + SALLY HERNANDEZ, Sheriff, Travis County, :. Custodian ae ae ; . By: PATRICK POPE, Asst. County. Atty., : ANTHONY J. NELSON, Asst. County : Atty. , + KEN PAXTON, A.G. STATE OF TEXAS oo By: ALI NASSER, Asst. A.G. Fed. Rs. require adding State A.G. for the : U.S.D.C. Habeas proceeding. Do: , * LORIE DAVIS, Dir,, Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Justice, Correctional Insts. Div. a : By: EDWARD LARRY MARSHALL, Asst. A.G. . : Even though Perkins was always in the Travis County system and was never in the Texas system, Fifth Cir. sua sponte docketed this and ruled with previously unnamed DAVIS as the sole Respondent. HERNANDEZ and PAXTON were added to the : Docket Sheet later. . ii . Petition for a Writ of Certiordri | Perkins petitions for a writ of certiorari to the ‘ Fifth Circuit as follows: oy. Citations below None. bt : , Jurisdiction. “a DEEL : (i) Date Cert. of Appeal.denied. «© = =~ °< No. 18-50675. Feb. 27, 2019. [+90: May 28, 2019]-°» (ii) Extension(s). we None. a ROGET 5 ae ; (iii) Rule 12.5. ee (iv) Statutes, Jurisdiction. . : . 28 U.S.C. §§ 1254(1), 2101). Bo (v) Statutory challenges, Rule 29.4(c). a Texas's A.G. is a party. : Non-Argument Calendar preferred 1 De ‘