Whether 'extraordinary circumstances' are present when a state prisoner's record shows a constitutional error that meets the federal 'plain error' standard, and the state courts do not employ any comparable constitutional safeguard for overcoming applicable default rules, and whether equitable tolling is available as a gateway for federal review of an otherwise time-barred constitutional claim that meets the federal 'plain error' standard

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Federal Court system provides the “plain error” rule to its prisoners as a means to litigate — and obtain meaningful merits review of — certain constitutional errors that are otherwise procedurally defaulted. This rarely-needed rule is, by _ necessity, a very tough standard for a prisoner to meet. But, when that strict standard can be met, a federal prisoner will enjoy a realistic and meaningful opportunity to litigate his defaulted claim. : ; There is no comparable constitutional safeguard available to a Florida prisoner. Hence, no realistic or meaningful opportunity to obtain merits review — much less any relief — on any defaulted constitutional violation... even if the prisoner’s issue meets the federal “plain error” standard. Presuming that Petitioner Pearson can thoroughly demonstrate this claimed inadequacy to the Court, such circumstances give rise to the following two-part question: 1) Considering that federal habeas courts maintain their power to fashion equitable remedies that allow for review and correction of otherwise barred constitutional claims under extraordinary circumstances, are “extraordinary circumstances” present when: (a) the face of a state prisoner’s record shows a constitutional error that meets the federal “plain error” standard; and (b) he has no realistic means to even obtain a merits review in the state courts because they do not employ any comparable constitutional safeguard for overcoming applicable default rules? And, if so; 2) Is equitable tolling available as a gateway for federal review of an otherwise time-barred constitutional claim that meets the federal “plain error” standard? Although these issues have been exhausted throughout the state and federal court systems, no court has yet commented directly on them. Pearson prays that this Court will expressly resolve the matter. i CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND