Writ of Mandamus

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED petit fnoy pug 16 tHe circum stances of thit C90, Morand 14 requesting $0 place the petitian(s) tn 4 perPerna| state of abeyance until 4 Counse/ $ tourd to represent. petitioner , TArs will Fae much longer than the 40 days gllotted +0 Seek certiora: and to preseve hig rights 0 holt, certiorari and mardamac, pti. ST petipiaher oS reauived 0 cubmrt his dummy AS ind cated -Cxtotek. 1S idigtnt and Cannot atforof aence( de this +12. Additionally, erérank sony) chan has Put hing ng g Sarionsly poor anol dis ady antag Mus cpate + heable | lo afford Conse . | Lagtly, thus (age poperiglly invilues etic Oren Congel is reauired 40 ensure cundamental Fairness ard tegrity NZ ACHING 45 4 witaess fo the w ont ue of, ANY infermatn net submitted in ths Petar will 0R | Subaitted 4 amendment. \ In re Jeansonne ; Supreme Court of the United States REG ElV ED ; APR 26 2022 "Writ of Mandamus" OFFICE OF IHG. GLERK 1. Movant, Shane Jeansonne, in pro se capacity, respectfully moves this honorable court to issue a writ of mandamus to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to reinstate the petition for a Certificate of Appealability made by movant pursuant to 28 USC 2253 and order the Fifth Circuit to consider the correct issue provided by movant; , whether or not the District Court erred by not finding a claim, that the effect of the dismissal on the merits of the first petition under 28 USC 2255 given pursuant to F. R. Civ. P. Rule 41(b) violated the jurisdictional limitations of 28 USC 2072(b) when the effect of that dismissal rendered subsequent petitions second or successive under 28 USC 2255(h) which modified or abridged movant's substantive right to file for relief under 28 USC 2255(a), was placed in the Section 2255 petition at all. To wit: 2. 1. Prologue Movant begins his story with the sad notion of peril with the , expectation that the judicial system operated with fundamental fairness and integrity. Sadly, movant's expectations has been shattered. If the treatment of movant's complaints in the lower courts is any indication of how this court will treat this petition, then it is all too obvious that movant will gain nothing; it would confirm movant's suspicion that all courts in this country have the authority to interpret all petitions as a request to possess a : | 1Y nuclear devices.! What is the value of the First Amendment right to seek a redress of grievances when a court can interpret a petition to add, subtract, or modify a complaint on . a whim or capricious basis to thwart access to relief? 3. That is what the lower courts have done in movant's case. Sadly, the reputation of the judicial system has been so badly tarnished by this atrocity that it would surprise movant if this court adjudicated this petition on the correct issue that movant is presenting instead of coming up with some random issue that the court could perceive without bothering to request of movant a clarification of the issue. In fact, movant expects that this court will attempt to intentionally thwart movant's petition by making such an . interpretation. That is how bad the judicial system has gotten. 4. 2. Procedural Background Movant was convicted of one count of possession of child pornography in violation of 18 USC 2252A(a)(5)(B) in the Western District of Louisiana. See Ex. Doc. 00516047060 (COA request), at iv, 1. After the appeals process, movant sought relief under 28 USC 2255 that was dismissed on the merits due to waived or non-cognizable claims. See Id. Movant then submitted another Section 2255 petition ; that was voluntarily dismissed. See Id. Movant then submitted the Section 2255 petition at issue here. ! The Fifth Circuit did not interpret the COA as a request to possess a nuclear device. What scares movant is that the Fifth Circuit could have done so based on how the outcome of the matter ended up, and not cared about the constitutional consequences involved nor the rules of judicial practice. The critical issue her