(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may from time to time prescribe rules for the conduct of their business. Such rules shall be consistent with Acts of Congress.

Statutory language notwithstanding, this Court denying to order a response is inconsistent with rule 20.4.(b). Petitioner has made application to the district court.

Court Rule 20. 4.(a) is calling a writ of habeas corpus a petition and not an application. This is inconsistent with Acts of Congress. 28 U.S.C. § § 2241(b), 2242, 2243 and Rule 20. 4. (b). “does not preclude further application to another court for the relief sought.”

Rule 20.4. (b) is inconsistent with Court Rule 20. 4.(a) “A petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus shall comply with the requirements of 28 U. S. C. §§ 2241,

p. 1.

2242.” Application to this Court is made to “any justice thereof” not to the Court.

28 U.S. Code § 2241

(a)Writs of habeas corpus may be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice

thereof, the district courts and any circuit judge within their respective jurisdictions.

(b)The Supreme Court, any justice thereof, and any circuit judge may

decline to entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus and may

transfer the application for hearing and determination to the district court having jurisdiction to entertain it.

28 U.S. Code § 2242 Application

If addressed to the Supreme Court, a justice thereof or a circuit judge it shall state the reasons for not making application to the district court of the district in which the applicant is held.

III

In rule 20.4. (b) this Court uses the word “court” out of context of 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2243. The word “court” in § 2243 refers to the district court and § 2241 confirms that.

Rule 20.4.(b) is inconsistent with Acts of Congress for habeas relief by substituting “court” for “justice” as to who orders a response.

28 U.S.C. §2243

A court, justice or judge entertaining an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.

Rule 20. 4. (b),

p. 2.

b) Habeas corpus proceedings, except in capital cases, are ex parte, unless the Court requires the respondent to show cause why the petition for a writ

of habeas corpus should not be granted.

This Court decides whether to order or not order a response is inconsistent with an Act of Congress. Title 28 U.S.C. 2243 requires a court, justice or judge to issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted,

IV.

Statutory language notwithstanding, this Court did not order a response. The petitioner is directed to seek relief from another court, the district court.

Rule 20. 4.(b)

Neither the denial of the petition, without more, nor an order of transfer to a district court under the authority of 28 U. S. C. § 2241(b), is an adjudication on the merits, and therefore does not preclude further application to another court for the relief sought.

This Court refused to order a response even when the Petitioner has made “application” for relief in the district court where he was convicted. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Appendix D. He was denied a certificate of appealability. (Appendix A. B, C.) Being incarcerated is not a substantial denial of his constitutional right of liberty.

This Court should order the Solicitor General of the United States, representing the custodian, to respond to the question presented in Mr. Pineda’s

p. 3.

Petition [Application] for Extraordinary Writ of Habeas Corpus.

1. THE QUESTION is whether being incarcerated a substantial denial of Petitioner’s constitutional right of liberty, without “sufficient cause,” without compelling reasons for the United States Congress to proscribe marijuana as a dangerous substance, therefore without due process of law in violation of Amendments IV and V of the Constitution of the United States and unconstitutional.

Respondent is to show cause why the petition should not be granted within three days.

28 U.S.C. 2243 2^nd clause.

The writ, or order to show cause shall be directed to the person having custody of the person detained. It shall be returned within three days unless for good cause additional time, not exceeding twenty days, is allowed.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this Court should order the response to Mr. Pineda’s PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.

In custody of the United States of America,

/s/ Eduardo Pineda, pro se
BOP. No. 27156-078
FCI Beaumont Low
P. 0. Box 26020
Beaumont, TX 77720

Dated: May 9, 2022

SCOTUS rehearing 21-7410

Print Sitemap
Our Rights Their Betrayal

Web View Mobile View

Logout Edit page