Malicious prosecution - favorable termination, abuse of process, Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, extradition, mandamus, habeas corpus

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED C1.) The U.S. Court of Appeals , for the Seventh Cireurt relied en HECK v. HumPHRe, 512 OS, ATT C94u)'s usual tort of maliainus proseevtion and its favorable termination ovtcome. The Seventh Cirevrt held that Petitioner was to be given relief yader aay sheory, Petttien ar Fiealy challenged that the toct of abuse of process Should have heen employed when Petitioner's Breach of Contract lawsuit was vawillingly converted to 31933, because of 4tewd tn probable cause and in the inifiatton of his Interstate Agreement on detainers Act (herein “LAD, extradrtion process, UNCTED STATES v. THROCK MORTON, 18 US. 6! C1818); aad CRESCENT CTY LivesToly Co. v. BUTCHER'S UNION SLAUGHTERHOUSE Co., /90 U.S. idl {Si [1887). Therein this Court mr Ueek supra; with Justice Souter Goneueriagy admits thet this uni que situation has nst been settled by this Gout 2 Q) The Seventh Cirevit euled that Potitioner did present a toastrhvtienal and Federel gpestin relying on LAD precedent CUYLER v. ADAMS, 4H4 U.S. 433 Cla8l), Tile 18 U.S.C, Appx. 2¥5, commands that even the Seventh Ctreit had a mandatory duty to enforee the LAD and not exereise diseretion to iqnore a lack of jurisdiction aecordina to CALIFORNIA v. LaRue, 409 VS. 109, U2 n. 3 (1979). Should writs of mandamus olor pooh: bition had issued, since $5 of the LAD has never been settled by thes Court? QB) Petitioner filly exhausting hus state remediés more then once , the state courts verlooked state federal and gonstrtvttonal law. Was the Seventh Crevit contrary to thir Court and 1994's Seveath Grevit in HECK v. HumPHREY , S12 U.S. 477 L199), whea it friled + reclassify Petitioner's Breach of Contract lawsurt, converted to 5 (983,40 2 habeas corpus acti ion GA) Pettioner's posttion that the “[TAD] & mandatory® U.Sv. MAURO, H36 U.S, 340 (1978); and “complaint | “refers to eriminal charges pending aapinst 2 peisoner™ CARLHMAN ¥. NASH |HT3 U.S. Tile La¥s)\; that extcadrtion is “Mvalid where receiviny state initictes extraditren proceed iig without complyiig with its own extoadihin stefute HUDSON v. MORIN. C1485 ,C.8.9. Nev.) Certation omitted), the Seventh Crrwit toneedes that"... arrestee ewld act have been conviéted ef poliée had been acting without probable cause“ TimBUKIUy, Koch 16.8.7 Cs.) 003, LA Feb. Appr. 676; and this Court declared: “a defendant may not be proseewted in violation of the terms of an extradition treaty” UNTIED STATES v, (iv) . PAat C2) QUESTIONS Akane. = maeHainl, 504 US055 (56 C1949) Therein, siice all stote. aad fedewl with celevatlavia the US Constetutten were overlooked by ederal distrret eovet_of Witconsin, with the Seventh —_Lirevit _Did._the with the fest, Second, Thted, Math Cineurts, —(&) the important guestiia_resultting in the Seveath Cirewts —___ —_use_of thé supra, by this Court's HEDRICK y LINDSAY A3US ——__143 (187@); EDWARDS » KeAR ZEW Wo US. 545. (i817), feaan Aotrele I, Section IQ, Cl wse_1_oP the US.Coastctutia, canbe superseded by 2 cule of thi Covet he) Was the Seceath Cisewit ia coaPlict with the Fifth Cneuit's LeChe Rev W5QR, HI F.3d Ho, 41 (Sth 018. 3005), and this Couchs IMBLER x PALUT MAN, HOY ——_U.S_ 1104 (14 Tle),-with_LARIDES v. BD. OE REGENTS, 535_US.13,019 (9002), —_whea_beth Respondeats were pecforent A —the Luactioa_ok theie respective eanecnaes inthe enbatexmeat of IA extradition lave Thereta, should —__—iawnvatty have beea_gcacted the peeseaoc jubject= —_< matter oc due process pcesent vader the Hh, 54, 13%, and [Ht Aonead moat — and the TADS A Was the. Seetath Lccuitt in_canblich with ith on Cinutt's Manlséole. 80,06 —_Tas., SSL F 3d 649,15 <1 Clth 42. 3008), aad the Eleventh Creeuit!s_AROSAID vv HILL BOROUGH CTY. 60.0F C14 comm'RS, 405 £.3d_ 1898, 131# Ciith 1a goos), hea both Respondents were pact of theie cespeckwe _ Ape a2: al $3122 (oalite! in states:UntBicer Coin'al Exioadtcg Act), that Goveenors_oF that State, ace_they “persons” foc $1983 2 —_(8))_Wss_-the Seventh Civevit_in_eanf let with this_Couct's HAR