Whether a U.S. District Court and Court of Appeals are bound by a State Supreme Court's interpretation of its own post-conviction DNA testing statute when sitting in Federal Habeas Review, thereby requiring AEDPA's limitation period to be tolled

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This matter presents an issue of first impression, Petitioner has been unlawfully denied his right to a Federal Habeas Corpus Review proceeding due to a U.S. District Court's and Court of Appeals’ refusal . to follow and apply the prevailing rule of State and Féderal Jaw. “The Court. of ‘Appeals acknowledged the below District Court's findings are in conflict with the highest court of the State and every District Court under the Third Circuit's jurisdiction — thereby violating Petitioner's Equal Protection and Due Process rights — but has refused to restore those rights back to Petitioner. ‘ I. TE the highest: court of a State, such a Pemsylvamia's Supreme Court, holds that the State's post-conviction DNA testing provision constitutes a "post-conviction review proceeding" under its Post-conviction Relief Act Statute, is a-U.S. District Court and Court of Appeals bound by that State's interpretation of the Statute's effect and purpose when sitting in Federal Habeas Review, thereby requiring AEDPA's limitation period to be tolled when such a State II. Does one or more, new or old decisions of a Federal Appellate Court constitute an "intervening change in the law which govern a petitioner's case" where a District Court made a prior decision on statutory law, stating it "was a matter of first impression in [the] Circuit", without reviewing, nor applying the well settled rule of law, as to create a conflict with every District Court under the Court of Appeals' jurisdiction, thereby constituting an extraordinary ; circumstances warranting Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b) relief? TH. Does denying a petitioner his right to a Federal Habeas Corpus Review proceeding on a unconstitutional application of statutory law constitute an abuse of discretion and manifest injustice where the petitioner's habeas petition was properly filed under State and Federal law? |