Whether a police officer's warrantless arrest based on probable cause arising from a good faith belief that property was stolen constitutes a valid Fourth Amendment seizure when the arrestee provides a potentially exculpatory explanation of how he acquired the property

No question identified. : 1, Pursuant to Rule 13.5 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States, Petitioner Harry Barnett respectfully requests a 49-day extension of time, up to and including September 30th, within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari for case: 23-2509 in the 7" Circuit U.S. Court of Appeal a The cases involved in the writ are: Barnett v. Kulisek, 7 Circuit U.S. Court of Appeal case: 23-2509 Barnett v. Elsmore 11" Circuit U.S. Court of Appeal case: 23-12517 EH The due date for Kulisek is August 12, 2025, and Elsmore is September 30, 2025. 4. Both cases involve, but are not limited to, Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claims, with a circuit split between the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits as to the viability and elements required of a claim, and thereby is of national importance. 5. This court has jurisdiction based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1651 as the two lower Courts are U.S. District Courts, and entered judgments in these matters. 6. An extension is required in order to have additional time to seek counsel to handle the writ of these cases, as Elsmore was recently issued by the District Court, and it is intended that both cases would be filed in one writ. 7. This is the first request for an extension of time. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari in Kulisek be extended by 49 days, to and including September 30, 2025, the due date of Elsmore, so one common writ may be filed for both cases. Respectfully submitted, /S/ Harry Barnett HARRY BARNETT, Petitioner HARRY BARNETT 1213 14" St #66 Key West, Florida 33040 Phone: 847-997-8570 Email: PRO SE PETITIONER CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of Plaintiff's MOTION FOR EXTENSION TO FILE WRIT OF CERTIORART has been furnished by email to: Julian Henriques at ofchicago.org, on behalf of Alexander Kulisek and the City of Chicago, this 29th day of April, 2025. /S/ Harry Barnett Harry Barnett 1213 14" St. #66 Key West, FL 33040 847-997-8570 Case: 23-2509 Document: 66 Filed: 05/14/2025 Pages: 1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 May 14, 2025 Before THOMAS L. KIRSCH IL, Circuit Judge JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge NANCY L. MALDONADO, Circuit Judge No. 23-2509 HARRY BARNETT, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Hinois, Eastern Division v. No. 1:18-cv-07946 CITY OF CHICAGO, et al., Sara L. Ellis, Judge. ORDER On consideration of the petition for panel rehearing filed by Plaintiff-Appellant on April 29, 2025, all members of the original panel have voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing. Accordingly, the petition for panel rehearing is hereby DENIED. RECEIVED AUG 5 2025 COUNT US: Case: 23-2509 Document: 60 Filed: 04/16/2025 Pages: 5 NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted April 15, 2025" Decided April 16, 2025 Before THOMAS L. KIRSCH IL, Circuit Judge JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge NANCY L. MALDONADO, Circuit Judge No. 23-2509 HARRY BARNETT, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. v. No. 18 C 7946 CITY OF CHICAGO, et al., Sara L. Ellis, Judge. ORDER Harry Barnett sued Alexander Kulisek, a police officer for the City of Chicago, and the City of Chicago, alleging that they violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment by unlawfully causing him to be detained pretrial. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. FED. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C). Case: 23-2509 Document: 60 Filed: 04/16/2025 Pages: 5 No. 23-2509 Page 2 The district court entered judgment for the defendants. We affirm because