Whether the lower courts prejudicially abused their discretion in denying both COA and the Rehearing request to review the district court's summary dismissal of the habeas petition on procedural grounds

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Lavolves: “Capetal OH ence' cases; : Class Action Habeas Corpus; lack of jurisdiction clase . Tnjudectously predicated by tHe lower courts! Storking refusal fo yield fo a 1003 change im fas to Fed RCu.A 23, tn an exceationally tmportent atypccal Habeas kale 2(d)based Gedgmentspectre! class action habeas corpus case affecting tHe Conureted felon “status of ShouSands of persons induding several tn Capelal Offense “cases ~ through « “facluve foacguive juris dection claim Comongst others) stated 4s acast the YO Judeceal Oesterct Court of Mew Mexico altemately stemming from He public exposure of He Destricts 52year-long violation of due process requirements of USCA. Const Amends Vand KY. through secret application of an Mecet Custom” which produced procedurelly delecdive and structurally deficient Grand Jury Bills of Lndvctment “ that were legally “invaled ef ssuance,” your Petitioner, Peweo J. AMAR, seeks peuier on the fullouing qvcstons as well as consideration of any others “fairly included. Ags. K) L. Whethee He lout of Appeals prejudically abused ats deserefion ia deny tng both CoA hap. AJ and the Rehearing request Mpb3 withotcmment) bo review Ha lS, Nastroct Courts summary Aismressal of the seldom~used habeas peetion (Rew; Boc-L) on procedural 9 rounds, where He distract court dismessed “all class actionclaims based on Amores nowotteracy'statas wetheut feaching He andedlying constitutional claims (Ages. 4, Band OQ); (a) contrary, to He Syoreme Courts principles 6s énrounced én Slack v. Me Dane, andlor, Colurhere He (ourer cots have ruled HatAmare ~65 a ‘non -atterney Cannot adequately repreSent the interests of the putative class “Noe. Ad : Zeluhdhe tHe decisvon below offends the US, Coustefution’s Habeas Corpus Suspension Clavse, . Act E, $49, el.2) becouse tHe LO Circuits restriction on whem may apply for habeas Corpus relief ts an unjust restrant or a “suspension” of tHe “Creat Wet" boa pavtrcular eloss of persons ov applicants and purports te preclude He wurt From entertaining an orrqenal application for hobeas corpus reltef. S.whether te lower courts “rulings in tHe present case, whichis Crstand foremosta Aubeas Corus ad Subjectenchem action, are rendered ord and of no effect Mrough each reSpective courts persistent disregard of affirmative reszonsibelitres, where the improper Conduct marked bya) non-compliance. with te modern standards of habeas corpu spre ice and procedure; (b)nonperformance of reguired courses of action pursuant te fixed grovisions of “Mendatery ) Stotutes; and lor, (3) te unreasonable sture cbecisis based summary dismissal of “all class action claims" (Agas. A,B, Cb and ED on Inqoplicable procedural grounds with inaet releance on obsolete case law deeded befure Ue Legislature's 200 3 Amendments te Fed. R Ly. 2.23, which Lacls do reflect changes to subciviscon (eJor embrace the new!addi teons of Subdivisions (g) and lh ), whech necessarily affect aad alter the previous puture of He Rules Cad (4) “Adequacy "requirements (uarth respect to a Pra Se Petitioner's leg al guolefications by malcing +a “mandatory” act for He court stself to capoint guatelied egal counsel toa class ypen certification, Y Whether, asa matter of law, the present acttonts maintainable as a elass action,” notwrthStanding a “re orous analysis ” and proper determination of Amaro$ ~ post 2003 Amend= ments ~ Rule 23 (a){4/ "Ad eG wary “as a Class Representative “pursuont te the Courts delermination in Perndh ux Uarted Sates Banking Corp, tel 1994 53 FE Sump. 15 3, where tHe Court held “TH seers ty me the rule Sees not G° beyond procedure... Simply because a particular Plaint!t cannot ge ally os a proper pa rly by matatain such an actron does ret destrey or even whrttle of the cause of action, The cause evists uatel a queledied pleints $l can get it Stoeted ta federal court, a where He Habeas Rule Ud)-based habeos corpus patrteon challenges only the judgments of a Single Stote-court by fargeling tle courts 32 year