Whether a state court's dismissal of a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the Heck doctrine improperly prevents an actually innocent prisoner from challenging his wrongful detention

No question identified. : 6. is the actually innocent victim, falsely imprisoned by government actions. The adverse a state judge, a state prosecutor and the Florida Attorney Generals Office are perpetrating malicious actions with connivance in the defeat. Prison employees are executing a fraudulent scheme to impede, delay, sabotage petitioner's access to courts, access to the law library the production of legal documents to be used in official proceedings, obstructing justice, depriving rights under color of law. 7. has been prevented from meeting 6 deadlines through fraudulent acts confining him. This impedes the legal mail process and deprives him of timely copies and the word processing of necessary documents to mail to the courts. Every registered deadline has been intentionally diverted requiring the filing of multiple motions to extend time. 8. case is extraordinary with merit and overwhelming, supporting evidence. Deprivations of Constitutional rights to Speedy Trial, exonerating purchased records, judgment of acquittal and release from custody, are willfully occurring. 9. The specific issues are detailed in the Initial Appellate Brief of a case dismissed by fraudulent claims that cannot use § 1983 for the relief he seeks, citing the Heck Bar erroneously requiring him to use a habeas petition. This diversionary, unlawful tactic is only to prevent access to courts and the submission of documents challenging the states assimilated process which authorizes Florida's kidnapping racket. 10. has cited the vague and ambiguous wording doctrines, providing the impact of actuality and the review by this court under the stare decisis doctrine. 11. has never had his day in court. He has been deprived of a true contest of the merits and an official jury trial. No reasonable finder of fact could ever find him guilty. Overwhelming evidence has been submitted, and disregarded, supporting his aH claims. Judge's rulings prove criminal intent refusing to address and correct clear, prolonged, arbitrary detention. (See this cases Initial Brief). 12. This court denied petition for Writ of Certiorai, case #20 — 6168. He foretold then, that federal judges would refuse to give him lawful relief. Now, 5 years later, he prays this court will hear and find his cause is for the preservation of American liberty as opposed to tyrannical incarceration of innocent citizens. This court must honor the spirit of liberty in the founding father's intent. Accordingly, requests 60 days extension of time to adequately prepare his Petition for Certiorari Review and prays this court is sympathetic to this cause taking Judicial Notice of the malicious actions of those who prefer oppression over truth, justice and liberty. [ PROVIDED BY LIBERTY Cl AUG 2 2 2025 Fara Respectfully Submitted: a : c Christopher J. Rahaim DC#R02347 Liberty Correctional Inst. 11064 N.W. Dempsey Barron Rd. Bristol, Florida 32321 FOR MAILING Erected onth sat Woy oF August 2035, USCA11 Case: 24-14175 Document: 31-2 Date Filed: 06/10/2025 Page: 1 of 3 CORRECTED ORDER In the United States Court of Appeals Hor the Eleventh Circuit No. 24-14175 CHRISTOPHER J. RAHAIM, versus BRUCE BARTLETT, State Attorney, individual and official capacity, NANCY M. LEY, Circuit Judge, individual and official capacity, BRODERICK L. TAYLOR, Former Assistant State Attorney, individual and official capacity, FREDERICK L. SHAUB, ASA, individual and official capacity, EDWARD R. JUDY, detective, individual and official capacity, et al., USCA11 Case: 24-14175 Document: 31-2 Date Filed: 06/10/2025 Page: 2 of 3 2 Order of the Court 24-14175 STATE OF FLORIDA, UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges. BY THE COURT: Christopher Rahaim, a pro se Florida prisoner, has moved for leave to proceed to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 moti