PETITION FOR REHEARING

 

 

Petition for Rehearing 
SCOTUS  CONFERENCE 06/02/2022

Mailed 27 April 2022

 

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-7410.html

The appendix to this case is not posted with this petition.

 

 

Wasn't posted until 5/11/2022

 

 

I wasn't sure if it was sent to the petitioner for being insufficent.

 

I sent another one. First/last  pages are different. see below.

Mailed May 9th 2022
 

 

This was the his first petition with the same appendix posted.

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-5821.html

This was the his first petition with an appendix posted.

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

This one will not be part of the record. But I have another on the way but will be to late for this Court term.

Case No.

21-7410

 

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

 

In re EDUARDO PINEDA

 

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF EASTERN TEXAS

 

 

PETITION FOR REHEARING
TO ORDER A RESPONSE
TO AN EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

 

    

Eduardo Pineda, pro se
BOP. No. 27156-078

 FCI Beaumont Low
P. 0. Box 26020
Beaumont, TX 77720

 

 

 

PETITION FOR REHEARING TO ORDER A RESPONSE
TO
AN EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

I

Petitioner’s Extraordinary Writ of Habeas Corpus was denied on April 18, 2022. An order for a response would not be issued.

The grounds for rehearing are the “intervening circumstances of a substantial [and] controlling effect” of Supreme Court Rules 20.4.(a)(b) to be inconsistent with Acts of Congress for habeas relief.

28 U.S. Code § 2071 Rule-making power generally

(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.

II

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.

V.

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 2nd 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

 

 

Print Print | Sitemap
Our Rights Their Betrayal