issues-being-raised

ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW L HABEAS 28 USC § 2254; CERT. OF APPEAL. 28 USC §2253; F.R. Civ. P. RULE 60(B)(6) Per Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 US 524, 125 S. Ct. 2641 (2005), Gakuba’s F.R.Civ.P.Rule 60(b)(6) motion challenging the USDC-ND.IL, Rockford, E-Division’s violation of habeas due | process on “mixed” habeas petitions when it dismissed “unexhausted” claims then denied exhausted claims, was DENIED in an unsupported and wholly conclusory order. This was objectively unreasonable, contrary to Gonzalez. See accord Sparks v. Dorethy, 2018 US APP LEXIS 32265 ** 1-3 habeas — cites Rose v. Lundy, 455 US 569 (1982); Rhines v. Weber, 544 US 369 (2005)). First, Fifth and 14" Amendments violations. Il. HABEAS 28 USC § 2254; CERT. OF APPEAL. 28 USC §2253; F.R. Civ. P. RULE 60(B)(6); N.D. IL Local Rule 40.3(b)(1)(C)-(D) N.D. IL Local Rule 40.3(b)(1)(C)-(D) barred USDC-ND IL Judge Frederick Kapala from presiding over Gakuba’s first pro se habeas petition because USDC-ND IL Judge Kapala already was presiding over Gakuba’s extant pro se civil suits. Gakuba v. O’Brien, 711 F.3d 751 (7" Cir. 2013); Gakuba v. O’Brien, 12-cv-7296 (USDC-ND IL); Gakuba v. Karner, 13-cv-50218 (USDCND IL). Per se USDC-ND IL Judge Kapala’s denial of Gakuba’s first pro se habeas petition was violative of Gakuba’s 14" Amendment right to be free from an irrationally biased and prejudiced federal jurist. Structural error. 5" and 14" Amendments violations. Affirmance of this structural error meant the USCA7 was biased and prejudiced too. if/v