Writ of Certiorari to US Supreme Court

[Inquisitivelaw]

Ohio, from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals

Greetings. After being denied COAs on the six grounds for relief requested (six of seven), petitioner-appellant (pro se) was two weeks late filing his motion for reconsideration of the denial of IFP status and the issuance of the requested COAs. He promptly filed a motion for extension of time and concurrently his motion for reconsideration. A glaring oversight was that ground seven was not disposed of or even addressed in the district court's order denying habeas relief, which would presumably entitle the petitioner to relief alone (would it not?). Otherwise, at least two of the remaining grounds for which a COA was requested clearly has merit and deserves encouragement to proceed further; the Sixth Circuit gave a cursory review and arbitrarily denied the requested COAs and IFP status.

Petitioner-appellant has 90 days from the date the COAs and IFP was denied to pursue a writ of certiorari to the US Supreme Court, correct? I would greatly appreciate some advice or insight on the best means to present this case to the Supreme Court, and I'd be happy to provide more detail on the case--it is very complex and stems from a six-year-old wrongful conviction. Thanks.

 

[tranquility]

I suggest you get a professional interested. It is unlikely the Supreme Court will take up a Pro Se's writ. I can confidently state no one here has presented a writ of certiorari that has been accepted. Few attorneys have.

The fact you blew a deadline is almost assuredly going to be enough to take things out of "have to" by the lower courts into a "want to". That the sixth has already denied you with a cursory review either shows that to be the case, you don't have a case, or, you simply cannot present the issues clearly enough.

 

[Inquisitivelaw]

I suggest you get a professional interested. It is unlikely the Supreme Court will take up a Pro Se's writ. I can confidently state no one here has presented a writ of certiorari that has been accepted. Few attorneys have.

The fact you blew a deadline is almost assuredly going to be enough to take things out of "have to" by the lower courts into a "want to". That the sixth has already denied you with a cursory review either shows that to be the case, you don't have a case, or, you simply cannot present the issues clearly enough.

Thank you; any advice on a means to get a professional interested? And what about pro bono or organizations that may specialize in this type of thing? I've been unsuccessful in my search thus far...if I could get past the hurdle of bringing the pertinent facts and arguments to someone's attention (and how the state and federal courts erred throughout the appellate process), I think this case would interest not just a few but many professionals, as it presents a very relevant and distinct question of law concerning three similar offenses: kidnapping, abduction, and unlawful restraint, not to mention a simple assault. A review of the record would likely lead anyone with a trained eye to see that the Sixth Circuit arbitrarily denied the issuance of the COAs, thus the cursory initial review. Though I certainly agree with your implication of the unlikelihood of the Supreme Court accepting the case, especially from a pro se litigant, it seems obvious that the Sixth Circuit again arbitrarily (and with NO explanation for the brief time-extension denial) denied the motion for reconsideration by way of denying the motion for extension of time to shelter it from having to make a ruling (favorably anyway), which would imply that the Supreme Court would perhaps be more likely than not to be compelled to at least order the Sixth Circuit to review the motion for reconsideration/rehearing on the COAs...

 

[tranquility]

Thank you; any advice on a means to get a professional interested? And what about pro bono or organizations that may specialize in this type of thing? I've been unsuccessful in my search thus far...if I could get past the hurdle of bringing the pertinent facts and arguments to someone's attention (and how the state and federal courts erred throughout the appellate process), I think this case would interest not just a few but many professionals, as it presents a very relevant and distinct question of law concerning three similar offenses: kidnapping, abduction, and unlawful restraint, not to mention a simple assault. A review of the record would likely lead anyone with a trained eye to see that the Sixth Circuit arbitrarily denied the issuance of the COAs, thus the cursory initial review. Though I certainly agree with your implication of the unlikelihood of the Supreme Court accepting the case, especially from a pro se litigant, it seems obvious that the Sixth Circuit again arbitrarily (and with NO explanation for the brief time-extension denial) denied the motion for reconsideration by way of denying the motion for extension of time to shelter it from having to make a ruling (favorably anyway), which would imply that the Supreme Court would perhaps be more likely than not to be compelled to at least order the Sixth Circuit to review the motion for reconsideration/rehearing on the COAs...

That is your error. They don't have to have a reason to deny a time extension to a motion. They MAY extend for good cause. Depending on the exact status of everything (which cannot be explained in a quick internet exchange) they might not even have the ability if the deadline was blown.
Rule 6

(b) Extending Time.

(1) In General. When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time:

(A) with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires; or

(B) on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.

(2) Exceptions. A court must not extend the time to act under Rules 50(b) and (d), 52(b), 59(b), (d), and (e), and 60(b).

 

[Sloop John D]

Thank you; any advice on a means to get a professional interested? And what about pro bono or organizations that may specialize in this type of thing? I've been unsuccessful in my search thus far...

A couple years ago it was quite common for major firms across the country to seek out Supreme Court worthy cases and handle them pro bono, just so they could say they did it and get some attention and prestige.

I'm not sure if this is still common practice, but I would assume that if you have a Supreme Court worthy case, many attorneys and firms would love to get in on it just so they could say they've litigated a case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.

If your case is truly something the Supreme Court would review, shop it around to a couple of the big firms in your state. If nobody wants to take it pro bono, that will probably be your first clue that your case is not something the Supreme Court will hear.

 

[FlyingRon]

It would take someone really desperate. Given what little we've been told, they haven't a chance of getting cert in this case. Bungled deadlines due to incompetent pro se litigants is NOT grounds for cert.

 

[Doreen]

The best time to get a professional involved, if the case had merit, would have been BEFORE the first appeal. No attorney is going to take a case to SCOTUS pro bono that was already botched on appeal with pro se errors, and with less than a 90 day deadline.

Reality is less than 1 in 100 petitions that are filed are granted Cert, and you are competing against petitions filed by the best law firms in the country. Pro Se odds are closer to one in thousands.

In the end, and after a lot of hard working preparing a petition formatted to demanding Supreme Court requirements, the only response the losing 99% of petitioners get is a one page response with the words Certiorari Denied

 

[Inquisitivelaw]

How about trying a different angle. What grounds would need to be met in order to reopen the appeal, in perhaps the lower district court or the Sixth Circuit? Forget pursuing it in the Supreme Court, as the odds are against it anyway (though if they are the only avenue for further review at this point then it may be too late). And I think it would help for the sake of objectivity if everyone can lose the pretense, for the purpose of this thread at least, that the pro se litigant failed to present meritorious arguments save for botching a deadline. Let's assume he presented at least one ground for relief, if not two, that was properly litigated and indeed entitled him to relief that the district court arbitrarily denied. That is the issue: what is his best recourse for seeing the conviction overturned at this juncture? How do people you hear about or see on perhaps a "60 Minutes" special get back into court after a decade of non-litigation and wind up overturning their convictions? There must be a way to get this appeal reopened on the merits.

 

[Silverplum]

How about trying a different angle. What grounds would need to be met in order to reopen the appeal, in perhaps the lower district court or the Sixth Circuit? Forget pursuing it in the Supreme Court, as the odds are against it anyway (though if they are the only avenue for further review at this point then it may be too late). And I think it would help for the sake of objectivity if everyone can lose the pretense, for the purpose of this thread at least, that the pro se litigant failed to present meritorious arguments save for botching a deadline. Let's assume he presented at least one ground for relief, if not two, that was properly litigated and indeed entitled him to relief that the district court arbitrarily denied. That is the issue: what is his best recourse for seeing the conviction overturned at this juncture? How do people you hear about or see on perhaps a "60 Minutes" special get back into court after a decade of non-litigation and wind up overturning their convictions? There must be a way to get this appeal reopened on the merits.

Try Tranq's & John's advice, get an attorney on board.

The internet isn't going to cut it. Assume this, assume that...no, thanks.

 

[FlyingRon]

Things won't get reopened when expired unless you can show something manifestly hidden at the time the time expired has changed things now.

 

[Ohiogal]

How about trying a different angle. What grounds would need to be met in order to reopen the appeal, in perhaps the lower district court or the Sixth Circuit? Forget pursuing it in the Supreme Court, as the odds are against it anyway (though if they are the only avenue for further review at this point then it may be too late). And I think it would help for the sake of objectivity if everyone can lose the pretense, for the purpose of this thread at least, that the pro se litigant failed to present meritorious arguments save for botching a deadline. Let's assume he presented at least one ground for relief, if not two, that was properly litigated and indeed entitled him to relief that the district court arbitrarily denied. That is the issue: what is his best recourse for seeing the conviction overturned at this juncture? How do people you hear about or see on perhaps a "60 Minutes" special get back into court after a decade of non-litigation and wind up overturning their convictions? There must be a way to get this appeal reopened on the merits.

You cannot jump from the DISTRICT Court to the Sixth Circuit. You have NO UNDERSTANDING of this process.