Whether principles of comity require federal courts to excuse exhaustion of state court remedies even if the state court decides not to adjudicate a post-conviction motion

QUESTIONS PRESENTED T. WHETHER PRINCIPLES OF COMITH REQUIRE FREQUENT BuT UNAVAILING FAIR PRESENTATIONS OF FEDERAL CLAIMS To STATE ZouRTS “Ta Excuse EXHAUSTION, EVEN IF THE STATE CouRT DECIDES TO ADIJUDICATE A ROST -CONNICTIGON MOTION UNDER MICH. CT RB, ©. SOBCD), ry) u PETITICNER ANSWERS, UES. RESPONDENT HAS NOT ANSWERED. List GF PARTIES Doveras JACKSON; AND YNITED StaTES BisTtwact court. RELATED CASES BOuGlAS JACICSON v. NATHAN HOFFMAN, U-S. SUP. CT No. 23-7638 7 IN| BE JACKSON, US. CT. APP. No. 231670; DOUGLAS JACICSON ve LES PAIRISH, No. 2:1S -cv-1le 227 C MICH. ED. YL e | STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION | PETITIONER DOUGLAS JACKSON Sees REVIEW OF WE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL S% FOR THE SIXTH AIRCUIT MAM tk, 2024, ORDER, THIS CouRT HAS JURISBICTICN PURSVANT TO ROLE 10, AND UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, LON STTUTIONAL AND STTATUTOIZ4 PROVISIONS INVOLVED es