No. 25-5271

Soleiman Mobarak v. Jay Forshey, Warden

Lower Court: Sixth Circuit
Docketed: 2025-08-05
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: actual-innocence aedpa constitutional-law ex-post-facto presumption-of-innocence subject-matter-jurisdiction
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2025-09-29
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Actual Innocence Exception applies to non-statutory offenses and whether a void state court judgment triggers AEDPA filing deadlines

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

1. Novel Issue : Is the Actual Innocence Exception to a procedural bar limited t cases where petitioners are convicted, but actually innocent of crimes that are defined as offenses by existing statutes; or does the Actual Innocence Exception also apply to cases where petitioners are convicted of innocent acts that are not defined as offenses by statutes that existing at the time the acts were performed, and where there are no statutory “crimes ” for which such petitioners could be said to be guilty? 2. Novel Issue : Is a judgment of a State court that is void and non-final, and never becomes final as a matter of State and Federal Law for want of subject matter jurisdiction, sufficient to trigger the AEDPA deadline for filing 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petitions set out in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), where the plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) specifically bases its one-year limitation on the finality of state-court judgments? 3. Apparent Novel Issue : Can the presumption of innocence that extends to every element of an offense, as set out in Morrissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 (1952), be rebutted and overcome by the presentation of evidence in a trial resulting in a jury verdict of guilty, despite the fact that there was no crime or offense defined by statute at the time the targeted acts were performed, and thus, no elements upon which to apply the presumption of innocence; or does the presumption of innocence for the non criminalized acts remain? 4. Is it repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, and/or laws of the United States for a State to charge and convict a United States citizen, and deprive him of liberty and property, for acts that no statute within the state proscribed the acts for which he was charged, convicted, and deprived of liberty and property, until after the acts were performed? 5. Is it a direct or constructive violation of Article I, § 10, Cause 1, of the United States Constitution, for a State to arrest and indict United States citizens for acts that were innocent when performed for want of statutory proscription, then later try them under one or more newly amended or enacted prospective statutory provisions that criminalize the same acts after they were performed? i Parties All Parties are listed in the caption List of

Docket Entries

2025-10-06
Petition DENIED.
2025-08-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2025.
2025-08-15
Waiver of Jay Forshey of right to respond submitted.
2025-08-15
Waiver of right of respondent Jay Forshey to respond filed.
2025-03-12
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 4, 2025)

Attorneys

Jay Forshey
Mathura Jaya SridharanOhio Attorney General's Office, Respondent
Soleiman Mobarak
Soleiman Mobarak — Petitioner