Whether the facts presented establish the petitioner's constitutional right to free-standing actual innocence claims under Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) and House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (2006)

No question identified. : Question _presested foc (aniatd Dees Me coaStitutow (Bcogn tr Ftee Stowdiag AAMS Ff Actsal PHOENCY ? Bars thy focts PLSentads Mavt the Stawdecd Aste vloted yp Sch\up ve Bylo) $13 u.5.298 — Aaqas) and Wouse ve Bur , i2© Set. 2064 (2006) (2) Casa, load Hoss». Bvaska , WIS y.s. 30% Cristea) oo... Gor don Yup ted StatvsS, 383 £.2d 936 Ciger) . Brak y. Kloride , 139 Ss ck, 20 (toro) +e h Waggivs (qanico, X1P £03 bie Cok oe took) 2-3 House vAil , \ab sch. 206% Lqoob) . Law jamnbact , 653 £38 ATK (gah cir. 20) Cow logue) += Law omitad Stakes » 343 Y-S; qua Gyasa) wl. aceraseg & Tatty Bas ¥-F 807 (aa) sees: Mm ddivbut gh RgightS vWeiss | 2B dro age. 33 \ (a oge. ) Lae ceive v. Pero , S13 ys BAB UAT)... BL Sovter v. Jones, gqs $39 577 (od cle, Poor) , 2... Sawyer v wh tes, sos 0.5. 333 Gait) LL, Shake ve DWOYN® Skoviamife ; 1908 ~oie = 246 wee Stata wv that es 4X ohio app: 29 74, (3 ae) += | ck aptey ve Beantleg y aes £39 10 LT aie noob) seop v. le 356 v4 B8 Kasse) tre urvied States Tac lyn 1 *8 pve Ns hor Nios pvr g.c%. (842 (iaas) +> gutted Stokes vy. Oe onti2, B83 Fa SIS CMa)... (4) par Ties Walden Shoo b C.c.t Pp. 9Boy * S S09 COSTA woyka Nye YTbo I The pittornuy gorecal s off ico go .€, Brood A , , Columbv Fy 6\\0 43215 Arg. Teo cory projecviors oH 1e® Abo Bign A. YM Nove WATT @ by oh\o 444g (3) Pro se status Before | begin | ask this Honorable Court to take notice that | am a inmate that is proceeding without counsel before the court. So | ask that this court liberally construe my motion and arguments in their best light. Supreme court rule 20 t come stating to the court that | have no other avenue to beable to bring my argument of actual innocence before the court. | have attempted to bring this evidence and argument before the district court for the northern district of ohio (see Dwayne stoutamire v. ; Christopher LaRose, case no. 4:10-cv-02567; Doc.# 82; Civil Rule 60(b) and (d) motion). The District Court declined to review my evidence and argument on the belief that it has already . reviewed this evidence and argument in two prior rulings and that all that | was doing was rehashing the same arguments (the district courts ruling -Doc.# 88 at page 5). So | appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, asking that court for a Certificate of Appealability (COA) (see Dwayne Stoutamire v. Christopher LaRose, case no.18-3216). The court of appeals, in its denial of my COA agreed with me that there were atleast 4 documents that were presented before the district court that it should have reviewed to determine if ! showed actual innocence. But the court of appeals declined to consider 4 other pieces of evidence under the law of the case doctrine. The court of appeals stated that there was atleast 4 documents that | have already presented before the district court that has already been ruled on so they were declining to consider them with the other evidence (Stoutamire v. LaRose, case no.18-3216 at pages 3-4; exhibit# at page 3-4). | wish the court to keep in mind when (s) the court of appeals did review these 4 documents it was reviewing it through the COA inquiry, and even then the court of appeals did not properly apply the COA steps, the actual innocence standard, or the law of the case doctrine standard. Looking at the court of appeals decision the law of the case doctrine should not have stopped them from considering the 4 documents that they did review with the 4 documents that they said that were already considered in a prior ruling. And the Schlup’s standard requires a court reviewing the actual innocence standard to consider all the evidence old and new. “in evaluating a claim of actual innocence as a substantial basis for relief, habeas courts do not blind themselves to evidence of actual innocence presented in prior habeas application. When confronted with actual-innocence claims asserted as a procedural gateway to reaching underlying grounds for habeas relief, habeas c