Did the Fifth Circuit's automatic application of Willis v. Cleco violate the pro se Petitioner's rights to equal-protection, meaningful-access-to-courts

QUESTION PRESENTED This case presents an intractable conflict between the rights of appellants in the Fifth Circuit to enjoy equal protection under the law and meaningfully access the courts and the Fifth Circuit’s application of Willis v. Cleco to routinely abridge those constitutional rights. The Fifth Circuit applies Willis in a manner that results in any appellant who fails to challenge all grounds supporting the district court’s decision having waived their appeal. Other courts of appeal apply this waiver principle on a case-by-case basis and do not automatically foreclose consideration of such appeals — allowing for exceptions to such waivers for the protection of fundamental rights. The question presented is: Did the Fifth Circuit’s automatic application of Willis v. Cleco, to foreclose consideration of Petitioner’s pro se appeal — in conflict with appellate courts that recognize that analysis of such waivers should be made on a case-by-case basis; and where the record demonstrated that the district court’s alternative basis for summary judgment lacked sufficient explanation to allow for meaningful appellate review violate the pro se Petitioner’s rights to equal protection and meaningful access to the courts? The question presented arises repeatedly in the Fifth Circuit, the Circuit refuses to reconsider it, and it continues to deprive many appellants in the Circuit li QUESTION PRESENTED — Continued of their rights to equal protection and meaningful access to the courts. The underlying cases are significant — often involving vulnerable, under-resourced appellants, those least able to procure expensive counsel who can research and draft appellate briefs to refute every potential ground upon which the district court’s ruling could conceivably be affirmed no matter how flawed. To add insult to injury, in Petitioner’s case the district court’s alternative ruling was cursory at best, and lacked a sufficient statement of reasons to allow for meaningful appellate review. In the case at bar, the Fifth Circuit held the claims properly presented in earlier complaints were “dead.” Thus, Petitioner’s newly discovered claims also failed. Petitioner, an African American, female, pro se appellant sought review of the district court’s questionable ruling of the pleadings explicitly used to maintain the earlier claims through an incorporation statement. But by failing to brief a challenge to the district court’s cursory, alternative finding, the Fifth Circuit found Petitioner waived her appeal and the claims deemed “live” would not survive summary judgment.