No. 20-124

Robert Fusco v. Tony Mays, Warden

Lower Court: Sixth Circuit
Docketed: 2020-08-05
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: civil-procedure civil-rights due-process equal-protection fourteenth-amendment standing
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2020-10-09
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the lower court erred in its interpretation and application of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

No question identified. : -— Questions Presnted —1) Whether the District court erred by dismissing Potitoners $2254 as Untimely (dee Wo. Lad 2) Which conklicts with decisions of other appellate courts of the same issue bot also US law under 28 USC $2244 (A)(1)(e) The dote_oo which the impediment to Ghag an applicaton — Ceated hy State CAC hin in Violation of the coash by hon of . law of the Unbecl Sh, tes 15 remove if tho apphccant wos mevented from Filing by such state acton — The impediment pena tho complete oss [olasteuc tion 00 (Oficals of Co so Mb tones local matenul aad promrly ducing Ws teasber to three seperate prisens with 24 howl peciod { Dense see ctqsccnsat) 2) Whether the Distact couct and Alopeals Coult ected 10 it's understanding of the Facts avid submissions presented ; by Neo se Dot tener and the yneascnable anlicaten ob established case law which not oaly conklicts wrth ths : court vt other coucts on the same issue — To whew the complete loss [destruc hen of Pro Se Del toners legal naterral 1S axtraccdinary as a matter of law dad 1s plawly preven ted Com bsliag aay Pleacdinc Fuc_scom chime (Diecse see ctqse gat ) 3) theth or the District court and Appeals court _orred . hy Avot ganhay No se Petihener a COA, 14 Conklict with decisions of olhor appellate courts on Hw same issue to whore feascnuble yrist could debate whothor Pro Se — pebrhen should have heen resolved ina clflecant manner, of hat the iesuss presented were adequate bv dosowe eAccracayemsat to proceed Further — Submissions presented | by Dose Dbbuore were clabatable aad enough to sal “ we hat st ocalie i i faut . 0 ve Elon . ho oll ececloat yy) Whether a Dew Se Do bihener IS cnhtlecl bo equitable . tolling or at @ minimum, Focthor Cactval clovelop mont with counsel before tho Dishact court whore the Delheners Submesions —domenchrato that there aro Ciccumstunces under which tolling IS worcanted. il |

Docket Entries

2020-10-13
Petition DENIED.
2020-09-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/9/2020.
2020-08-25
Waiver of right of respondent Tony Mays, Warden to respond filed.
2020-05-01
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 4, 2020)

Attorneys

Robert Fusco
Robert Fusco — Petitioner
Robert Fusco — Petitioner
Tony Mays, Warden
Thomas Austin WatkinsOffice of Tennessee Attorney General, Respondent
Thomas Austin WatkinsOffice of Tennessee Attorney General, Respondent