Was the California Court of Appeal in conflict with other circuits on the issue of probable cause and Second Amendment rights?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED. Petitioner’s case was wrongly affirmed by the California Court of Appeal for reasons of “probable cause”, despite the fact that Manuel v. City of Joliet, 137 S. Ct. 911, 919-920, and fn. 8 (2017), allows the Superior Court to review a lack of probable cause, despite the fact he was later found not guilty by a Jury. The Petitioner’s complaining witnesses were drug addicts, one of them was a convicted felon, a fact that was not ~ disclosed until the 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 (6" 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 California Court of Appeal in conflict with now, the Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits, and the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals when the California Court of Appeal affirmed the Order Sustaining Demurrer and Order granting Summary Judgment based on the alleged fact that there was “probable cause” even -though Petitioner was exercising his Second Amendment rights, contrary to Manuel v. City of Joliet, 137 S. Ct. 911, 919-920, and fn. 8 (2017), when Petitioner was deprived of his evidence that was truthful, and under Brady v. Maryland, 373 US. 83, 3 S. Ct. 1194; 10 L. . Ed. 2d 215 (1963)? 2. Was the California Court of Appeal without jurisdiction to solely rely on a false hearsay-laden Police Report in order to affirm the Order Sustaining Demurrer and Order granting Summary Judgment based on the alleged fact that there was “probable cause” even though Petitioner was exercising his Second Amendment rights, contrary to Manuel v. City of Joliet, 1378. Ct. 911, 919-920, and fn. 8 (2017)? Petition for Writ of Certiorari ~ Diaz v. County of San Bernardino 2 3. Was the California Court of Appeal without jurisdiction, and in conflict with the Ninth Circuit, in that the Respondent Sheriff and the Respondent Deputies are local (not State) officers under California law? 4. Was the California Court of Appeal without jurisdiction, and in conflict with , the Ninth Circuit, in that Petitioner was allowed to be free from a discriminatory arrest under 42 U.S.C., §§1985(2) and (3), and 1986? 5. Was the California Court of Appeal without jurisdiction, and in conflict with the Ninth Circuit, in that Petitioner was subjected to discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act when Respondent Deputies assigned Petitioner to an upper bunk contrary to both said Act and a Court Order? Petition for Writ of Certiorari Diaz v. County of san Bemardino 3 ;