No. 21-5860

Antonio Franklin v. Tim Shoop, Warden

Lower Court: Sixth Circuit
Docketed: 2021-10-05
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: appellate-process cruel-and-unusual-punishment due-process eighth-amendment equal-protection final-judgment-rule fourteenth-amendment ineffective-counsel judicial-dereliction
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus Punishment JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2021-11-19
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments protect inmates from an allegedly faulty appellate process due to ineffective counsel

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Though completely forsaken by the protections of the Sixth Amendment by the time state appellate inmates arrive at the federal appellate courts, does either the Eighth or the Fourteenth Amendments “protect” said inmates from being subjected to an apparently faulty appellate process due (in part) to ultra-egregious, ineffective counselors? : 2. Is it cruel and unusual punishment to have a magistrate judge “exercising ‘plenary’ power” render absurd, yet binding oxymoronic decisions (that undoubtedly impedes a petitioner’s path towards justice) to which the Sixth Circuit refuses to acknowledge and/or overturn? 3. Are “continual,” blatant violations against an appellant’s Eight and Fourteenth Amendment Constitutional Rights severe enough violations to justify deviation from the “final judgment rule” of 28 U.S.C. §1291 in the Federal Courts? | 4, Are the Eight Amendment Rights (against cruel and unusual punishment) and the Fourteenth Amendment Rights (for due process and equal protection) constitutionally | sound enough to guard against an indigent inmate having the entirety of his federal appellate process rendered useless — notwithstanding the fact that said indigent inmate had vigorously endeavored to avoid such a dire predicament? ) 5. Ifit’s proven beyond a reason of a doubt that assigned counsel is derelict; the magistrate , judge “exercising plenary power,” and as such having “final authority” in his case, has been grossly “judicial derelict” throughout the handling of Petitioner’s appellate process; and the two entities (whether working together or not) had a synergistic, yet detrimental effect on Petitioner’s entire federal appeals to the result of “an aborted appellate process”; yet, the Sixth Circuit observed “all,” but did “nothing” to effect justice and provide balance and equity; does these violations of Petitioner’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights entitle him to appeals anew? | i | i LIST OF ALL PARTIES [X] All parties appear in the caption of the case cover.

Docket Entries

2021-11-22
Petition DENIED.
2021-11-03
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/19/2021.
2021-11-01
Reply of petitioner Antonio Franklin filed. (Distributed)
2021-10-18
Brief of respondent Tim Shoop in opposition filed.
2021-06-29
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 4, 2021)

Attorneys

Antonio Franklin
Antonio S. Franklin — Petitioner
Tim Shoop
Benjamin Michael FlowersOhio Attorney General Dave Yost, Respondent