Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Ronald David Jones, Petitioner v. Grand Canyon University, et al.

No.

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

RONALD DAVID JONES PETITIONER

-

VS.

GRAND CANYON UNIVERSITY, et al..

--

RESPONDENT(S)

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

(NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON MERITS OF YOUR CASE)

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

RONALD DAVID JONES

(Your Name)

1821 MCKELVY STREET

(Address)

OUTNCY. FLORIDA 32351

(City, State, Zip Code)

(850)320-2298

(Phone Number)

2

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

Why did the United States District Court For the Northern District of Florida

Tallahassee Division not rule on Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment when they

knew that the Defendants refused service of summons.

Why did the United States District Court For the Northern District of Florida

Tallahassee Division not on Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment when they

knew that Defendants did not respond within 21 days after service of

summon on Plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or motion under

Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?

Does service of summon mean that only Plaintiff had to service by putting it

in the Defendants hands?

Don't the Defendants have to service Plaintiff a response within 21 days by

putting it in Plaintiff's hand not by putting it in the mail after the 21 days?

Why were the Defendants waiting to the last minute to respond when they

knew that time is everything in these type of cases?

Why did the United States District Court For the Northern District of Florida

Tallahassee Division allow Defendants to do anything they want any way

they wanted to?

Did someone from the United States District Court For the Northern District

of Florida Tallahassee Division call the Defendants on the last day at the last

minute and tell them that they needed to respond to Plaintiff's Summons in

this Civil Action?

Don't Service of summon mean putting it in Plaintiff's hand to prevent the

very thing in which the United States District Court For the Northern

District of Florida Tallahassee Division did when they conspired with

Defendants denying Plaintiff his rights?

Was someone paid off?

Why Defendant James Newman never served?

11 .Why per Mr. Meyer, per Dan Steimel, Assistant General Counsel would not

confirm or deny any Grand Canyon University relationship with named

individual defendants and not authorized to accept on behalf of named

individual defendants?

12. Why in the end Defendants were defended by the attorney for Grand

Canyon?

3

13. Why did the United States District Court For the Northern District of

Florida Tallahassee Division do a change of venue when Plaintiff strongly

objected because Christ Town Ministries place of Internship is in Quincy.

14.Why did the United States District Court For the Northern District of Florida

Tallahassee Division let Defendants attorney do anything he wanted?

15.Was someone paid off? GCU and Christ Town Ministries is the same case.

Why did the United States District Court For the Northern District of Florida

Tallahassee Division do everything in its power to dismiss Plaintiff's case

and complicate matters?

Why did the United States District Court For the District of Arizona,

Phoenix do all of the above for Defendants in this case?

18.Why did the United States District Court For the District of Arizona,

Phoenix in the middle of helping with the Service of Summon Dismiss

Plaintiff's case?

19.Was someone paid off?

20.Why did the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit do all of

the above for Defendants in this case?

21. Why did the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit so rude to

Plaintiff and no one would even rehear Plaintiff?

22.Was someone paid off?

23.1s not this obstruction of justice by the United States District Court For the

Northern District of Florida Tallahassee Division, the United States District

Court For the District of Arizona, Phoenix and the United States Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit?

24.They all seem to have an agenda. Was someone paid off?

25.1s not Trump University a private university?

26.Don't the same rules apply to Grand Canyon University that applies to

Trump University you cannot sue or serve summon on a private university?

27.Why not everyone just refuse service of summon?

28.Will refusing service of summon make everything go away?

29.Why are these court allowed to do anything they want any way they want

without any course of action?

30.1s not Justice delayed Justice denied?

31 .Who will stand up to these obstructionists?

. .

4

LIST OF PARTIES

All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of all

parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this petition

is as follows:

Terry Bovinet, Defendant/Appellee

David G. Campbell, United States District Judge

Shakeisha Chambers, Defendant/Appellee

Done Done, Defendant/Appellee

Casey Fetkenhier, Defendant Appellee

Grand Canyon University, Defendant/Appellee

Kenneth Hood, Defendant/Appellee

Ronald Jones, Plaintiff/Appellant

James Newman, Defendant/Appellee

Ted Rivera, Defendant/Appellee

Rose Shaw, Defendant/Appellee

Andrew Sutherland, Defendant/Appellee

Tom Hardison, Defendant/Appellee

Christ Town Ministries, Defendant/Appellee

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINIONSBELOW.................................................................9

JURISDICTION......................................................................10

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISION INVOLVED......11

STATEMENT OF THE CASE......................................................12

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT.......................................20

CONCLUSIONSION ................................. . ............................... 22

INDEX TO APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Decision Of The United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit

APPENDIX B Mandate United States District Court for Arizona, Phoenix

APPENDIX C Application for Attorney Fees Under Ninth Circuit Rule 39-1.6

APPENDIX D Decision Of The United States District Court for Arizona, Phoenix

APPENDIX E Plaintiff's Objections To Motion to Transfer Case

APPENDIX F Order for Transfer United States District Court Northern District

APPENDIX G Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment. .Plaintiff Never Served

.

APPENDIX H Declaration of Delivery By Private Process Server

6

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

CASES

PAGE

FEDERAL CASES

Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 807 F.2d 889, 892 (11'h Cir. 1986)..........2

Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 536, 640, 107 S. Ct. 3034, 3039,

97 L. Ed. 2d 523 (1987) ..........................................................3

Ashcroft v. Igbal, 556 U.S. 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949,

173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) ............................................................15

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S. Ct. 99, 102, 2 L. Ed. 2d 80

(1957) ...............................................................................

Dollar y. Haralson County, 704 F.2d 1540, 1542-43 (11th Cir.), cert.

17

denied, 464 U.S. 963, 104 S. Ct. 399, 78 L Ed. 2d 341 (1983)................1

Emory v. Peeler, 756 F.2d 1547, 1554 (11th Cir. 1985)

1

E&TRealty,830F.2dat 114 ..................................................16

Fadjov. Coon, 633 F.2d 1172, 1174-1175 (5th Cir. 1981).....................2

Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640, 100 S. Ct. 1920, 1923, 64 L. Ed. 2d

572 (1980) ........................................................................2

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-521, 92 S. Ct. 594, 596, 30 L. Ed. 2d

652(1972) ...........................................................................17

Harvey v. Harvey, 949 F. 2d 1127, 1129 (11th Cir. (1992) ....................2

Holt, 862 F. 2d 850 ................................................................. 18

Holt v. Ford, 862 F. 2d 260, 261-62 (5th Cir. 1986) ..............................18

Jackson v Dallas Police Dept., 811 F. 2d 260, 261-62 (5th Cir. 1986) .........18

Jones v. White, 922 F. 2d 1548, 1537 (11th Cir.) (citations omitted), cert.

denied, 510 U.S. 967 (1993) ........................................................16

7

Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 9225, 930, 102 S. Ct. 2744, 2750,

73 L. Ed. 2d 185 (1978)..............................................................2

Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11'Cir. 2007) .....................15

Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) ...............2

Oladeinde v. City of Birmingham, 963 F. 2d 1481, 1485 (11th Cir. 1992)

(citation omitted), Cert. Denied, 113 S. Ct. 1586 (1993) .......................17

Polk County V. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (198 1) ..............................2

Powell v. Lennon, 914 F.2d 1459, 1463 (11th Cir. 1990) ........................15

Rivas v. Freeman, 940 F. 2d 14911 1495 (11th Cir. 199 1) .......................3

Sanders, 177 F. 3d at 1249 ..........................................................

3

Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1, 9, 64 S. Ct. 397, 401, 88 L. Ed. 497 (1994). 16

United States v. Lamer, 520 U.S. 259, 271, 117 S. Ct. 1219, 1227, 137 L. Ed.

2d432(1997) ..........................................................................3

Wright v. Newsome, 795 F. 2d 294, 967 (11th Cir. 1986) .......................17

FEDERAL STATUTES

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) ................................................................17

28U.S.C.1915(d) ...............................................................17,18

42 U.S.C. § 1983 ........................................................................8,15

OTHER

11

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment

below.

OPINIONS BELOW

[X] For cases from federal curts:

The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at Appendix _A_

to the petition and is

[X] is unpublished.

The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendix _B-C-D_

to the petition and is

[X] is unpublished.

The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendix E-F-G

to the petition and is

[X] is unpublished.

JURISDICTION

{X} For cases from federal courts

The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my

04/07/17

case was

[X] A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States

Court of Appeals on the following date:

04/11/2018 and a copy

of the order denying rehearing appears at Appendix

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(1).

10

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

1St Amendment ........................................................................3,15

4th Amendment ........................................................................ 2,15

14th Amendment ....................................................................... 2,3,15

11

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Defendant Grand Canyon University who conspired Tom Hardison

deliberately fail to submit Plaintiff grades because he knew it would cause Plaintiff

to fail course and not receive a Master's Degree. Defendant Grand Canyon

University who conspired Tom Hardison did because of Plaintiff's race, religious,

and political views. In so doing Defendant Grand Canyon University who

conspired Tom Hardison and Christ Town Ministries deprived Plaintiff of his

rights, privileges, and immunity protect by the Constitution. Plaintiff was misled

by Defendant Grand Canyon University who conspired with Tom Hardison and

Christ Town Ministries in the agreement that they would email Plaintiff's final

grades. This action or inaction caused Plaintiff not to get a Master's Degree, but

also Defendant Grand Canyon University conspired with Tom Hardison and Christ

Town ministries to defrauded Plaintiff of $90,000 in loan to pay for education.

Plaintiff was also defrauded of a Job after Graduation, and Plaintiff's Livelihood.

To "state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts showing that the

defendant's act or omission, done under color of state law, deprived him of a right,

privilege, or immunity protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States."

Emory v. Peeler, 756 F.2d 1547, 1554 (1 1th Cir. 1985); Dollar v. Haralson County,

704 F.2d 15405 1542-43 (11'Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 9635 104 S. Ct. 399, 78 L

12

Ed. 2d 341 (1983). In other words, Plaintiff must allege that Defendant "deprived

him of a right secured by the 'Constitution and laws' of the United States" and that

the Defendant did so "under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation custom, or

usage of any state.. ." Fadjo v. Coon, 633 F.2d 1172, 1174-1175 (5th Cir. 1981).

Quoting Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 807 F.2d 889, 892 (11 ' Cir. 1986); Lugar

v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 930,102 S. Ct. 2744, 2750, 73 L. Ed. 2d 185

(1978).

From a review of the complaint it is evident that the facts as presented state a

viable claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege a violation of a federal right by

person acting under color of state law. Gomez v. Tolledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640, 100

S. Ct 1920, 1923, 64 L. Ed 2d 572 (1980). Within the Complaint, Appellant Jones

alleges violation of his 4th Amendment right which is protected by his

Amendment right.

Appellant is informed that it is well settled that respondent superior, without

more, does not provide a basis for recovery under section 1983. Polk County v.

Dodson, 454 U.S. 312,325 (1981); Harvey v. Harvey, 949 F. 2d 1127, 1129

(11th

Cir. 1992) (citing) Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).

Although personal participation is not specifically required for liability under

section 1983, there must be some causal connection between each defendant

13

named and the injury allegedly sustained. Rivas v. Freeman, 940 F. 2d 1491, 1495

(1 1th Cir. 1986). One cannot be held liable for the actions or omissions of others,

but can be held responsible if he participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff's

constitutional rights. Appellant Jones alleges that because of his race, religious and

political beliefs he is being targeted in violation of his 1" Amendment right which

is protected by his 10' Amendment right.

The general statement of the law, i.e., that a state official my not

purposefully or selectively enforce a facially neutral statue, is well established in

this Circuit and "may apply with obvious clarity to the specific conduct in

question, even though 'the very action in question has [not] previously been held

unlawful'." United States v. Lamer, 520 U.S. 259, 271, 117 S. Ct. 12197 1227, 137

L. Ed. 2d 432 (1997) (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 536, 640, 107 S.

Ct. 30341, 3039, 97 L. Ed. 2d 523 (1987). The mandate of Fla Stat, was clear, a

reasonable person charged with administering the statute should have known that

by intentionally departing form the law to deny Plaintiff with any information

about the case, the Defendant's actions were so obviously illegal in the light of

then existing law that only an official who was incompetent or who knowingly was

violating the law would have committed them." Sanders, 177 F. 3d at 1249.

14

COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND DISPOSITION BELOW

Appellant Ronald David Jones appeals pro se from the district court's

judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law

violations.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Defendant Grand Canyon University conspired with Tom Hardison to

deliberately fail to submit Plaintiff grades because he knew it would cause Plaintiff

to fail course and not receive a Master's Degree. Defendant Grand Canyon

University conspired with Tom Hardison because of Plaintiffs race, religious, and

political views. In so doing Defendant Grand Canyon University conspired with

Tom Hardison and Christ Town Ministries deprived Plaintiff of his rights,

privileges, and immunity protect by the Constitution. On March 10, 2014, Plaintiff

submitted a copy of resume along with Affiliation Agreement Between Grand

Canyon University and Site Provider to Tom Hardison of Christ Town Ministries.

It was clearly explained and agreed upon what was of expected of Defendant and

Plaintiff in this binding agreement between Christ Town Ministries and Grand

Canyon University. Plaintiff agreed to work at Christ Town Ministries/Defendant

and Christ Town Ministries agreed to submit required information to Grand

Canyon University on behalf of Plaintiff. Plaintiff worked 58 hours between the

15

dates of March 12, 2014 and March 28, 2014. Plaintiff worked well over the

required 40 hours and feel that this field experience was a helpful learning

experience because he got a chance to learn first-hand about the Men's Residential

Recovery Program (MRRP). Working with the men in the community garden has

brought new meaning to field experience. Plaintiff found it a little odd that as an

intern he had to work as if he was in the program. Plaintiff thinks that the services

he performed were relative to that of a professional in my field of study because of

my training and experience he would be an asset to the Men's Residential

Recovery Program (MRRP). Plaintiff worked directly with the men in the Men's

Residential Recovery Program (MRRP) and they are required to be supervised at

all times. The Site Supervisor or one of his assistant was supervising not only the

clients work but Plaintiff work as well. Overall Plaintiff was always treated in a

respectful manner. While the work was physical Plaintiff enjoyed his internship at

Christ Town Ministries, Inc. Men's Residential Recovery Program (MRRP).

Defendant agreed to submit the required paperwork and did not according to Grand

Canyon University. This cause Plaintiff to not be able to graduate with a Masters in

Christian Studies and placed a hardship both physically and mentally. Plaintiff

believes that this was a deliberate act by Defendant Grand Canyon University who

conspired with Tom Hardison and Christ Town Ministries to cause Plaintiff to fail

and not receive Master's Degree because of his political and religious beliefs.

16

Plaintiff owes $90,000 in loans in this Master's Degree Program. Plaintiff owes

$90,000 for nothing. These actions or inactions were deliberately taken by

Defendant Grand Canyon University who conspired with Tom Hardison and Christ

Town Ministries to discriminate against Plaintiff by this despaired treatment..

Plaintiff completed all course work and sent in all requested information and

the Defendant University of Grand Canyon who conspired with Tom Hardion and

Christ Town Ministries then said they did not receive Plaintiff information from

Plaintiff place of internship. Plaintiff personally sent in all information and

Plaintiff place of internship stated that they submitted the information. Plaintiff

personally went back to place of internship several times, also call several times,

and every time was told that all information was submitted. Defendant Grand

Canyon University who conspired with Tom Hardison and Christ Town Ministries

in doing this because Plaintiff is Black and worship and serve the Godhead as

Black. Plaintiff got every right to worship the Almighty God as Black because he

is Black! That is what Plaintiff believes and that is what Plaintiff preaches. I got

every right to worship the Almighty God as Black because he is Black! That is

what I believe and that is what I preach. Yahh<strong 3050> God Yehovah<strong

3068> Ishi<strong 376> The Black One and The Only One, The Father.

Yahshua/Yeshua<strong 3091/3443> Ben Yahh God Yehovah Ishi Kristos<strong

17

5546> The Black One and The Only One, The Son. Holy<strong 6940>

Ghost<strong 4151> Paraclete The Black One and The Only One, The

Spirit<strong 4151>. Satan<strong 7854/4567> Lucifer<strong 1966> The White

One and The Only One, The Anti-Father. Anti-Kristos<strong 500> The

Beast<strong 2342>The White One and The Only One, The Anti-Son. The False

Prophet<strong 5578> The White One and The Only One The Anti-Spirit. Plaintiff

perspective of the Bible being a Black Book because two-thirds of the Bible is

about Black people living in Black places. Because many historians and religious

leaders have not clearly identified the ethnic background of the Biblical African

Hebrew-Israelites The Original Jewish Race The True Children of Israel The Black

Ones are almost invisible. Subsequently, most honest seekers of the truth about

their religious heritage have been misinformed. The African Hebrew-Israelites The

Original Jewish Race The True Children of Israel The Black Ones distinguish

ourselves from Caucasian Jews who, according to some non-Jewish European

historians and even some European Jewish sources, were converted to Judaism in

the year 740 A. D. Also, before 740 A. D., during the second century,

approximately 135 B.C.E., the Idumeans (Edomites) converted to Judaism. The

Caucasian Jews of today are not the descendants of the Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob

The Black Ones of the Bible. That is what I believe and that is what I preach and

no one is going to stop me from using my right to do so, No matter what.

18

C. STATEMENT OF STANDARD OF REVIEW

In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that:

(1) a person acting under color of state law; (2) deprived him or her of a right

secured by the Constitution. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Appellant has brought this

matter to this Court based upon the dismissal of claims against Appellees

Defendant Grand Canyon University who conspired with Tom Hardison and Christ

Town Ministries. The review should be in favor of Appellant Jones for violation of

[St

Amendment and 4th Amendment rights protected by the 14th Amendment. The

Court must review the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim for

which relief may be granted pursuant to § 191 5(e)(2)(B)(ii) de novo, applying the

same standards that govern Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Mitchell v.

Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (1 It" Cir. 2007). Pro se pleadings are liberally

construed and held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys.

Powell v. Lennon, 914 F.2d 1459, 1463 (11th Cir. 1990). However, in order to

survive a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff's complaint must contain facts sufficient

to support a plausible claim to relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 556 U.S. 662,

678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).

19

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH

CIRCUIT INCORRECTLY DISMISSED APPELLANT JONES' CAUSE

OF ACTION HEREIN.

Read liberally, Appellant's pro se complaint alleges that he was the victim of

the Defendants' purposeful improper administration of Florida's statute for their

own benefit. "The requirement of intentional discrimination prevents plaintiff form

bootstrapping all misapplications of state law into equal protection claims." E & T

Realty, 830 F. 2d at 1114. "Discriminatory purpose implies that the decision maker

selected a course of action 'because of' its detrimental effects on an identifiable

group. Error, mistake in judgment or arbitrary administration in applying a facially

neutral statue does not violate equal protection." Jones v. White, 922 F. 2d 1548,

1573 (11th Cir.) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 967 (1993). "Purposeful

discrimination may be shown where the "defendants' conduct [was] deliberately

base on a justifiable, group based standard." E & T Realty, 830 F. 2d at 1114.

Additionally, it may appear on the face of the action taken with respect to a

particular class or person." Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1, 9, 64 S. Ct. 397, 4013P

88 L. Ed. 497 (1944).

In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully MOTIONED that Appellant's

amended complaint NOT BE DISMISSED and relief be granted pursuant to 28

20

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Dismissal of an action is not appropriate unless it appears

beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claims,

which would entitle him to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-6, 78 S. Ct.

99, 2 1. Ed. 2d 80 (1957). The Court must accept as true all well pleaded factual

allegations and reasonable inferences from those allegations in ruling upon such a

motion. Oladeinde v. City of Birmingham, 963 F. 2d 1481, 1485 (11th Cir. 1992)

(citation omitted), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 1586 (1983). Pro se complaints must be

held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by an attorney. Wright v.

Newsome, 795 F. 2d 964, 967 (11 Cir. 1986), citing Hanies v. Kerner, 404 U.S.

519, 520-1,92 S. Ct. 594, 596, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1972).

The United States Court of Appeals erred when it refused the appointment of

counsel to take advantage of Appellant creating a travesty of justice. In considering

appointment of counsel for civil rights plaintiffs under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915 (d),

courts have generally agreed that such appointments are only appropriate under

"exceptional circumstance." While many courts treat this "test" as a simple factual

determination which will vary from case to case, others have expressly elaborated

on the factors which should be considered in determining whether to appoint

counsel under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(d). Kevin W. Brown, Annotation, Appointment

of Counsel, in Civil Rights Action. under In Forma Pauperis Provisions (28

21

U.S.C. § 1915 (d), 69 A.L.R. Fed. 666 (1984). Typically, factors such as the

complexity of the case, the ability of the Plaintiff to investigate the case and his

ability to present the case at trail are evaluated, Id. See also, Holt v. Ford, 862 F. 2d

850 (11"' Cir. 1989); Jackson v. Dallas Police Dept., 811 F. 2d 260, 261-62 (5th Cir.

1986). A district court typically considers, in addition to the factors already

discussed, the merits of the plaintiff's claim is factually or legally so complex as to

warrant the assistance of counsel. Holt, 862 F. 2d 850; Jackson, 811 F. 2d 260.

CONCLUSION

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS INCORRECTLY

DISMISSED APPELLANT JONES' CAUSE OF ACTION HEREIN.

Based upon the facts that exist in this case, it is clear that the United States

Court of Appeals err when it dismissed Appellant's claims. Based upon the

inappropriate determination by the United States Court of Appeals, the dismissal of

Appellant's claims by the United States Court of Appeals must be reversed.

The petition for writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

019

22