Petition for Rehearing — Andrey L. Bridges, Petitioner v. David W. Gray, Warden

>

-

No. 19-7749.

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

♦

ANDREY L. BRIDGES

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

DAVID GRAY, WARDEN,

Respondent-Appellee,

♦

ON Motion/Petition to Rehear Writ of Certiorari

to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

MOTION TO REHEAR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

This request to rehear, is presented in good faith and not for delay.

Respectfully submitted,

Andrey L. Bridges #A650-<|p3

Belmont Correctional Institution

P.O. Box 540

68518 Bannock Road

St. Clairsville, Ohio 43950

may 2 o 2020

No. 19-7749

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

ANDREY L. BRIDGES

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

DAVID GRAY, WARDEN

Respondent-Appellee,

On Motion/Petition to Rehear Writ of Certiorari

to the UNITED STATES COURT of APPEALS for the SIXTH CIRCUIT

CERTIFIED CERTIFICATE OF GROUNDS THAT ARE LIMITED TO

INTERVENING CIRCUMSTANCES OF SUBSTANTIAL OR CONTROLLING EFFECT OR

TO OTHER SUBSTANTIAL GROUNDS NOT PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED.

i.

Petitioner petition does not lack merit and is stated and

presented in good faith, and not for delay.

By demonstrating the following Memorandum in support, it is-a

reasonable likelihood of this court reversing it's previous decision

and grant certiorari, (quoting) Richmond v. Arizona, 443 U.S. 1323

98 S.Ct. 8, 54 L.ED.2d 34 (1977).

3.

Petitioner Certify the above to be true under the penalty of

perjury, as well What is stated below, all based on information and

belief, and to those beliefs, petitioner believes to be true.

I

H ‘

Petitioner contends that this Court has not entertained a claim

of a freestandning claim under actual innocence.

However, this court have determined that a actual innocence claim

could be present

in cases concerning procedural defaults. "See"

Shulp v.fDelo, 513 U.S. 298 316-317, 115 S.Ct 851, 130 L.Ed.2d 808,

(1995).

By not entertaining if or when a freestanding claim is

constitutional sound or not, is very dangerous to the United States

Constitution, of Equal protection of the Law, as set in the

Constitution of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Q.

Petitioner's case is a prime example, because as the lower courts

have used continually in denying Bridges Constitutional violations;

(citing); Cleveland v. Bradshaw; 65-F. Supp.3d 499, 514-15 (N.D.

Ohio 2014) the United States has not yet determined if a Freestanding

actual innocence claim is cognizable in habeas corpus.

7,

This Court is so moved / ? as this court has stated: There is no

"Higher Duty"

of a court, under our Constitutional system, than the

careful processing and adjudication of petitions for writs of Habeas

Corpus, because if his sentence is unlawful, it deprives him "See"

Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 292 89 S.Ct. 1 082, 22 L. Ed.; (1 969).

By hearing petitioner's case, as to the grounds for rehearing,

"shall" be limited to intervening circumstances of a substantial or

controlling effect or to other substantial grounds not previously

presented..These grounds are brief and concise,

Petitioner, certify ^

rehearing is restricted to above quoted

and cited, and is only presented in good faith and not for delay.

l0,_

The issues and claims has not been presented to this court before

in such styled aspect.

Example:

a

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

Jurisdiction

It-

On January 22, 2020; petitioner filed for writ of certiorari challenging his

constitution violations, and On March 23, 2020, this Supreme Court of the United

States denied the jurisdictional certiorari in Bridges v. Gray, 2020 U.S. LEXIS

1713, Case No. No. 19-7749.

a

Petitioner/Appellant comes timely within the 25 days to request rehearing of the

certiorari, pursuant to the United States Supreme Court Rule 44.

This request to rehear, is presented in good faith and not for delay.

Discussion and Applicable holdings:

it

This court has held and ruled consistently that the interest in finality of litigation

must yield where the interests of justice would make unfair the strict application of

our rules.

This policy finds expression in the manner in which the court has exercised its

power over the court’s own judgments, both in civil and criminal cases. “See”

Clark v. Manufacturers Trust Co., 337 U.S. 953, Goldbaum v. United States,

347 U.S. 1007; Banks v. United States. 347 U.S. 1007; McFee v. United States,

347 U.S. 1007; Remmer v. United States, 348 U.S. 904; Florida ex rel.

Hawkins v. Board of Control, 350 U.S. 413, Boudoin v. Lvkes Bros. S. S. Co..

350 U.S. 811; Cahill v. New York. N. H. & H. R. Co., 351 U.S. 183,

Achilli v. United States. 352 U.S. 1023.

3

A Petition for rehearing of denial of petition for certiorari was part of appellate

procedure authorized by Rules of Supreme Court, subject to requirements of

predecessor to Rule 44 on rehearing’s; right to such consideration was not to be

deemed an empty formality as though such petitions would as matter of course be

denied; denial of petition for certiorari should not be treated as definitive

determination in Supreme Court, subject to all consequences of such an

interpretation. Flynn v. United States. 75 S. Ct. 285, 99 L. Ed. 1298 (1955).

In other words, the avenue petitioner comes now, is of such course that can

request this “Honorable” Court and “Respective” Justice’s to rule on the merits.

/'■E Because there is a good chance this court, while reviewing the case will find his

conviction and denial of COA is:

1. Wrongful, as it so, all rulings of the lower courts have implied infringement

of Amendment 5, 6, 8, and 14; of the United States Constitution, and may

result from disobedience to unlawful authority, “Quoting”; Bushier v.

Marruio. 86 N.M. 399, 524 P.2d 1015, 1019;

2. False Imprisonment, where Bridges is unlawfully under detention, whereby

he is denied his personal liberty, “Quoting”; Punier v. Seubert. 69 WIS. 2d

626, 230 N.W. 2d 626, 631.

3. Impression, Case First, this case is a precedent one, presenting a wholly

new state of facts, one involving a question never before determined.

4. Improper to the United States Constitution. Not suitable, unfit, not suited

to the character, time, or place. “Quoting”; God,bey v. Godbev. 70-Ohio-App.

.455, 44 N.E. 2d 810, 813. And not in accordance with facts, truth, or right

procedure and not in accord with propriety, modesty, good taste, or good

manners, “Quoting”; Landry v. Daley. D C. Ill 280 F. Supp, 968, 970.

5. Failure of Justice, the defeat of a particular right, or failure of reparation

for the wrongs Bridges faced in the lower court[s], from lack and inadequacy of

a legal remedy enforcement of Bridges to redress the court of law, also known

as miscarriage of justice.

6. Miscarriage of Justice. All the lower court[s] decision and outcome of legal

proceeding that is prejudicial, and is inconsistence with substantial rights,

used in constitutional standards to deny Bridges, are in reversible error. It

makes a reasonable probability of more favorable outcome for Bridges, People

v. Lopez. 251 CAL. App. 2d, 918, 60 Cal. Rptr, 72, 76. Warranting reversal

should be declared, when this court, after examination of entire cause,

including the evidence, is of opinion that it is reasonably probable that a

result more' favorable to Bridges appealing would have been reached in

S

absence of error, “Quoting”; People v. Bernhardt. 222 CA 2d 567, 35 Cal.

Rptr. 401, 409.

7. Manifest. “Quoting”; Houston v. Leyden Motor Coach Co. 102 Ill. App. 2d

348, 243 N.E. 2d 293, 296 “See” also, Graf v. Ford Motor Co., 102 Ill. App. 2d

390, 243 N.E. 2d 337, 341. Where this court will find abusive and prejudicial

denials.

8. Error. “Quoting”: State ex rel. Smith v. Smith. 197 OR. 96, 252 P. 2d 550

555. Where, all rulings in Bridges case at the lower level are in conflict with

each other and when shown still denied.

9. Fundamental unfair. “Quoting”; Roberts v. State IND.. 492 N.E. 2d 310,

313; Where this court will see. that Bridges COA was denied as not raising a

constitutional claim, yet the record and arguments demonstrates otherwise.

10.Denial of error of Coram Nobis, the issue here was appropriately raised by

Bridges in his habeas corpus petition. The facts relied on are dehors the record

and the effect on the judgment was not open to consideration and review on

appeal. The lower courts refused to review, “But” In such circumstances the

use of the writ in the federal courts to test the constitutional validity of a

conviction for crime is not restricted to those cases where the judgment of

conviction is void for want of jurisdiction of the trial court to render it. It

extends also to those exceptional cases where the conviction has been in

disregard of the constitutional rights of the accused, and where the writ is the

only effective means of preserving his rights. Quoting”; Moore v. Dempsey,

261 U.S. 86; Mooney v. Holohan. 294 U.S. 103; Bowen v. Johnston. 306

U.S. 19, 24.

11. Actual Innocence, real existing presenting in fact; the absence of guilt; free

from guilt, Quoting”; U.S. v. Friday, D.C. Mich.. 404 F.supp. 1343, 1346.

12. Actual Total Loss of Freedom. Constitution. Constitution Law,

Constitutional Protections, Constitutional right[s], Constitutional Questions

by not reviewing or fairly De Novo, Bridges claims, or reviewing the record

and misapplying denialfs] for CO A, in the Lower courts.

13. Burden of Proof. quoting”; In re Winship. 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25

L.Ed. 2d 368; The lower court[s] failed to fairly apply this standard, and

unconstitutionally; opinioned, ruled, and restricted Bridges 14 Amendment to

the United States Constitution.

14. Corpus Delicti, the body of the crime was unconstitutionally determined to

the elements of the crime and facts and evidence was erred when connected to

federal standards of law. Quoting”; State v. Edwards 49-Ohio-St. 2d 31, 358

N.E. 1051, 1055.

7

Example:

Pro se petitioner Andrey Bridges has a strong argument that his trial and

resulting life sentence were fundamentally unfair because the State withheld

material exculpatory evidence. See Brady v. Maryland. 373 U. S. 83, 87, 83 S. Ct.

1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963). The state courts offered flawed rationales for

rejecting all his claim’s. [Ineffective assistance of counsel’s; Actual/Factual

Innocence; Due Process violations of Equal Protection of the Law; his

conviction is constitutionally prejudicial against the United States

Constitution of Amendment 5, 6, 8, and 14; and that he is denied to redress

the court of law -fairly].

AO,

Nevertheless, the District Court denied Bridges federal habeas relief, and both

the District Court and the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit summarily

declined to grant Bridges a “certificate of appealability” (COA), 28 U. S. C. $2253(c).

concluding that his claim was not even debatable.

D-i,

Without a COA, Bridges cannot obtain appellate review on the merits of his

claim. Because the COA procedure should facilitate, not frustrate, fulsome review of

potentially meritorious claims like Bridges, this court is “Respectfully” moved to

grant the petition for writ of certiorari and reverse the denial of a COA, and

Certiorari that was denied in this court.

Since the lower court’s denial held, Bridges does not have a constitutional right,

and Bridges did not present a constitutional issue to be heard;

23.

“But” it is apparent and can be seen on the face of the record, his issues are of

constitutional magnitude of violations.

Bridges is serving a life sentence with possibility of parole with 20 years and 6

months in an Ohio state prison, having been convicted in 2013 of murder,

tampering with evidence, and gross abuse of corpse.

xf.

The State’s case at his trial featured only testimony from the real killers as police

reports directly implicated them. The experts did not or could tie the scientific

evidence to the murder.

However, the detective told the true killers to get an alibi after questioning. In

which their alibi in trial was separate and different from police reports, evidence

and testimony that was used to convict Bridges. There is also new information that

was not investigated, that the date of the murder the state assert, the victim was

alive. This could change the outcome of the proceeding, because Bridges were not

living at the resident then.

27.

Also to the fact that the evidence that was shown and used to convict

Bridges, was not tested. “See” (T.1-1514) The detective requested it to be tested,

but never were.

To this date; Bridges continually argue his innocence.

“[NJormally, you will not see a guilty person stand and fight for his innocence and

freedom as Bridges. This what’s make this case exceptional to hear.

3*.

Upon being convicted, Bridges discovered new evidence that his counsel had and

reports that the detectives had, and evidence off of the internet demonstrating his

innocence. That was not fully investigated nor presented to the jury.

SA

*

As it turns out, the lower court, upon Bridges fight to prove his innocence places

his claims off the record in post-conviction pleadings, then when Bridges file the

claims in that proceeding, the lower court then places the claims back on the record,

stating the claims should have been raised on appeal.

31,

Shortly after the trial ended, Bridges requested any information on his case from

the Ohio state prosecutor, trial attorneys, and arresting officer. All sent some of the

record and that is when Bridges reviewed the record and discovered evidence was

left out that demonstrated his innocence. “See” in the Northern District of the

Eastern Division, Case; Bridges v. Sloan. l:15-cv-02556; Doc#33 and also

Footnote of the Report and Recommendation Doc#47 Pageld#5663; Bridges

properly filed the record that respondent left out, however, it was not filed for

docketing. This shown the lower court the innocence of Bridges, and what makes

him innocent of the crime. And wrongfully convicted, and held unconstitutionally.

The evidence was never reviewed in the lower court[s]; Ever.

I O

33.

The District Court denied Bridges pro se petition for federal habeas corpus relief

under 28 U. S. C. $2254 and declined to issue a COA. The Court of Appeals likewise

denied a COA. Bridges, still pro se, Bridges, petitioned for a writ of certiorari to

review that denial.

Although the motion is a discretionary one, requesting jurisdiction, his petition

was denied as a normal practice of this court.

3 V.

Bridges prays for this court to take jurisdiction because there is server

manifest[s] injustice and miscarriages of justice that needs to be heard, and

addressed constitutionally.

iS.

Bridges also move this court “Respectfully” to issue rehearing and issue merit

review. Because the denial of his petition is not of the standards of equal protection

under the United States Constitution, and against the rights that are protected by

the United States Constitution.

3U

The act of the lower court[s] has so infringed upon the right that damages the

integrity of justice and the right to be protected by the Constitution. This is stated

because the lower court[s] in Bridges case has denied him:

Amendment 6 Rights of the accused.

In relevant part; have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor,

and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

1 I

Amendment 8 against cruel and unusual punishment.

The Supreme Court has held that the Eighth Amendment prohibition against the

infliction of cr uel and unusual punishments not only is applicable to the Federal

Government, but also is applicable to the states on the basis of the due process

clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (§ 3, infra.) 33 L. Ed. 2d 932

Amendment 14 Equal protection of the law.

Sec. 1. [Citizens of the United States.] All persons born or naturalized in the

United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United

States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law

which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due

process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of

the laws.

Example:

37.

The federal courts handle thousands of noncapital habeas petitions each year,

only a tiny fraction of which ultimately yield relief. See N. King, Non-Capital

Habeas Cases After Appellate Review: An Empirical Analysis, 24 Fed. Sentencing

Reporter 308, 309 (2012) (Table 2) (less than 1% of randomly selected cases in an

empirical study).

I JL

3?.

While the volume is high, the stakes are as well. Federal judges grow accustomed

to reviewing convictions with sentences measured in lifetimes, or in hundreds of

months.

3l

Such spans of time are difficult to comprehend, much less to imagine spending

behind bars. And any given filing—though it may feel routine to the judge who

plucks it from the top of a large stack—could be the petitioner’s last, best shot at

relief from an unconstitutionally imposed sentence. Sifting through the haystack of

often uncounseled filings is an unglamorous but vitally important task.

COA inquiries play an important role in the winnowing process.

L}Q>.

The percentage of COA requests granted is not high, “See” (study finding that

“more than 92 percent of all COA rulings were denials”), but once that hurdle is

cleared, a nontrivial fraction of COAs lead to relief on the merits, see id., at 309

(Table 2) (approximately 6%). At its best, this triage process focuses judicial

resources on processing the claims most likely to be meritorious. Cf. Miller-El. 537

U. S., at 337, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 154 L. Ed. 2d 931(AEDPA’s COA requirement

“confirmed the necessity and the requirement of differential treatment for those

appeals deserving of attention from those that plainly do not”).

Unless judges take care to carry out the limited COA review with the requisite

open mind, the process breaks down. A court of appeals might inappropriately

decide the merits of an appeal, and in doing so overstep the bounds of its

jurisdiction. See Buck. 580 U. S., at

., 137 S. Ct. 759, 197 L. Ed. 2d 1 (slip op., at

13

I

13); Miller-El. 537 U. S., at 336-337, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 154 L. [**1164]. Ed. 2d 931.

Hi.

A district court might fail to recognize that reasonable minds could differ. Or,

worse, the large volume of COA requests, the small chance that any particular

petition will lead to further review, and the press of competing priorities may turn

the circumscribed COA standard of review into a rubber stamp, especially for pro

se litigants.

Hi,

This court has periodically had to remind lower courts not to unduly restrict this

pathway to appellate review. See, e.g., Thame v. Sellers. 583 U. S.

545, 199 L. Ed. 2d 424 (2018) (per curiam); Buck, 580 U. S.

, 138 S. Ct.

137 S. Ct. 759, 197

L. Ed. 2d 1; Tennard v. Dretke. 542 U. S. 274, 124 S. Ct. 2562, 159 L. Ed. 2d 384

(2004).

This case provides an illustration of what can be lost when COA review becomes

hasty. It is not without complications: There is good arguments, yet unexplored,

why Bridges claim fell short of seeing he did raise constitutional claims, yet still

was denied COA.

And of course, this court will see and finding that Bridges constitutional rights

clearly were violated would necessarily imply that he is innocent of the serious

crimes of which he was convicted; Bridges could not be reconvicted after a fairer

proceeding. See Kyles. 514 U. S., at 434-435, 115 S. Ct. 1555, 131 L. Ed. 2d 490. But

the weighty question whether Bridges is “in custody in violation of the

Constitution,” §2254(a), appears to have gotten short shrift here. With a lifetime of

\H

lost liberty hanging in the balance, this claim was ill suited to snap judgment.

This case is similar and maybe identical to White v. Warden. Ross 2019 U.S.

App Lexis 35494 6th Cir. Nov, 25 2019, White v. Warden Ross, 940 F.3d 270 Lexis

34633; where this case is still under review, because the court have determined that

Ohio court[s] are abusively applying standards to deny constitutional violations.

Conclusion:

Wherefore, Bridges argues that for all these reasons, the District Court’s

decision was certainly “debatable, and “The Court of Appeals’ resolution of the case

has denied his COA as a compounded error of a constitutional magnitude of

violations against the United States Constitution.

hi,

This case instead should have gone to a merits panel of the Sixth Circuit for

closer review, and Bridges comes before this “Honorable Court” and it’s

“Respective Justice[s]” to hear and take jurisdiction of the case and merit, and allow

Bridges to fully brief his case.

EXECUTED ON (Yl ft .

t

7 TU

,

2020

Respectfully submitted,

Andrey L. fridges #A65

93

Belmont Correctional Institution

P.O. Box 540

68518 Bannock Road

St. Clairsville, Ohio 43950

(Ve> S-e (

Js