Should a civil action be granted to correct the District Court's error in misrepresenting a precedent?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Should a civil action be granted to proceed to correct the District Court's error where they misrepresented a precedent, Hoffenberg v. Meyers, and thus failed to properly apply it. The district court, in citing Hoffenberg v. Meyers, states “[U]nder New York law, a plaintiff cannot state a malpractice claim against his criminal defense attorney if his conviction 'remains undisturbed.” Hoffenberg v. Meyers, 73 F. App'x 515, 516 (2d Cir. 2003). However, the District Court was incorrect in this regard for at least two significant reasons, both easily found within Hoffenberg v. Meyers. The standard cited by the District Court only applies to “criminal defense attorneys” and not appellate counsel, as evidenced in the next paragraph of this motion. More importantly, the Southern District of New York turned a blind eye to the most relevant portion of Hoffenberg v. Meyers, failing to address the Plaintiff's proof of actual innocence. In this Plaintiff's case, the charges in the defective indictment are not crimes as detailed in the “amended complaint and jury demand”, Innocence is also shown via exculpatory video recording evidence, which the Defendants REFUSED to help the Plaintiff's attain. The Defendants also ignored other exculpatory evidence. “To state a cause of action for legal malpractice arising from negligent representation in a criminal proceeding, plaintiff must allege his innocence or a colorable claim of innocence of the underlying offense.” Hoffenberg v. Meyers, 73 F. App'x 515, 516 (2d Cir. 2003). Here, the Plaintiff clearly asserts and can demonstrate her ACTUAL and FACTUAL innocence. : 2. Should a civil action be granted to proceed to address ineffectiveness of appellate counsel when they did not raise the objection of the best evidence rule with regard to suppressed and withheld exculpatory video recordings? ; An instance of the Defendants' ineffectiveness was that they did not raise the objection of the best evidence rule with regard to suppressed and withheld exculpatory video recordings, when testimony was given by the Government witnesses who claimed that the Plaintiff directed them to : commit pharmacy law violations. This critical evidence would establish that the Plaintiff did not direct of ship Butalbital, a drug that never existed in the pharmacies, and was not present in the video as referenced at trial by the Government's witnesses. It is not an exaggeration to say that the objection of the best evidence rule should have been raised for physical evidence that contradict every single one of G the government's witnesses. , Also, in this specific case, the video recordings proved the Petitioner's actual innocence in that she followed the law, did not commit the crime, and was wrongly convicted due to Attorney's malpractice and negligence, as stated in the “amended complaint and jury demand”. 3. Did the District Court erred by improperly dismissed the Plaintiff’s amended complaint prior to service of process? The Plaintiff was granted in forma pauperis. The District Court improperly dismissed her amended complaint prior to service of process. In fact, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held the dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) prior to service of process is improper. This action was filed by a Pennsylvania prisoner at a State Correctional Institution. The complaint alleged the defendants, all judges, court clerks, or lawyers, conspired to have a civil case he filed in the State Court of Common Pleas dismissed. The district court granted the prisoner in forma pauperis status, and it then dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) before Service of process was made. The prisoner appealed. The Third Circuit held that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) ONLY allows dismissal of a complaint if it is frivolous or malicious. Once a plaintiff is granted in forma pauperis and the suit is not considered frivolous or malicious, it must proceed as any othe