Whether the Eleventh Circuit denied Matthew Phillips procedural due process by barring a second habeas petition when no adequate remedy exists for a fraudulently suppressed right

d I. Whether or not the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has denied Matthew Phillips procedural due process by denying leave for Phillips to file a second or successive habeas petition when Phillips has no adequate or effective remedy for the protection of a fraudulently suppressed right? II. Whether or not 28 U.S.C. § 2244 is denying Phillips equal protection of the law as 28 U.S.C. § 2255 offers Federal prisoners a gateway for execution of sentence through 28 U.S.C. § 2241, but, since Phillips is a state prisoner, he is held subject to second or successive bars of 28 U.S.C. § 2244 WHICH DO NOT challenge the conviction NOR the imposed sentence, BUT ONLY the execution of the sentence, to-wit: the way the sentence is being carried out? III. Whether or not the Respondents have committed Deceptive and Fraudulent Acts on Matthew Phillips, as well as a suspect class of ALL Alabama prisoners convicted, sentenced, and whose crimes occ urred between the years 1969 and 2015, by SUBVERTING a State Created Liberty Interest in donating BLOOD to the American Red Cross to recieve a thirty (30) day deduction in the aggregate sentence once yearly, of which Phillips would have done every opportunity HAD THE RESPONDENTS PERFORMED THEIR DUTIES ACCORDINGLY, BUT INSTEAD the Alabama Courts and Officials have protected the Respondents when it is proved they intentionally and willfully suppressed a state created liberty interest and subverted our Constitutions and Government by BRAINWASHING Phillips to LOOK NO FURTHER THAN THEIR RULES, REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES, thus denying and depriving Phillips of due process by notice to receive good time and now Phillips is receiving ex post facto punishment through no fault of his? (i)