Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Allen Glenn Thomas, Petitioner v. Tekle Girma Abebe, et al.

No.

- I35J

Supremo Court, U.S.

FILED

MAr? 1 9 2021

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

ALLEN THOMAS

— PETITIONER

(Your Name)

vs.

Tekle Abebe.etal

— RESPONDENT(S)

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS-FIFTH CIRCUIT

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

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

ALLEN THOMAS2

(Your Name)

2004 HIGH HILL Blvd.

(Address)

Dallas,Texas 75203

(City, State, Zip Code)

(682)314-9302

(Phone Number)

a

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

1) The Question Presented is an important one in the evolution by statutes and United States Constitution,

lst;5th;14th Amendments,the Bill OF RIGHTS in the Texas Constitutions,Articles !,§§17;19.The primary

contentions is now before this court is that the U.S.Magistrate judge IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ,U.S.

District judge SAM R. CUMMINGS denied,deprived this plaintiff access to the courts, Thomas contends

that the district/appeals courts erred in dismissing his claims denying him a discovery hearing and denying

him an opportunity to amend his complaint to prove his claims under these statutes and United States

Constitutions,Texas Constitutions.

2) Whether the district/appeals court errored in not granting the plaintiff a chance to file a motion to

Amend the State statute Tex.Civ.Prac.&Rem.Code§12.002 under his fraudulent deeds claims,18 U.S.C.§

1001 Fraud False statements?

3)Whether the district/appeals courts errored in denying me an Evidentiary/Discovery hearing to prove

the forgery of my {Dead} mother's signature on these property deeds,these documents,other court records

that Tarrance L. Hawkins transferred into his name at 1911 McBroom St. Dallas Texas 75212 to Cynthia

Bryant?

4)Whether the district/appeals court errored in dismissing my claims against these defendants under 42

U.S.C.§1983;lst;5th;14th Amend(s)?

5)Whether the district/appeals courts errored in Sua Sponte dismissing these named defendants,claiming

they were unsered?

iii

-1

LIST OF PARTIES

[x] All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.

[ ] 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:

ALLEN GLENN THOMAS

Plaintiff-Appellant

V.

1)TEKLE GIRMA ABEBE-Defendant(s)-Appelle;2)WOLDER MARIAM ASTER-Defendant(s);

3)DALLAS AREA HABITAT FOR HUMANITY INCORPORATED-Defendant(s)-Appellee;

RELATED CASES

4)DALLAS NEIGHBORHOOD ALLIANCE FOR HABITAT-Defendant(s)-Appellee

5)WILLIAM D.HALL-Trustee-Defendant(s)-Appellee;(6)NEAL TOMLIN-Trustee FOR F &M

BANK,Trust Company-Defendant(s)-Appellee;(7)TARRANCE L.HAWKINS-Defendant(s);

8)CYNTHIA BRYANT-Defendant(s)-Appellee;ATTORNEY'S AND COUNSELS FOR Defendant(s)

Appellee(s);(9)THOMPSON,COE,COUSINS & IRONS,L.L.P.;Craig L.Dowis-State Bar N0.24028655

C dowis@thompsoncoe.com-Phone N0.(214)871-8200;(10)Caitlin N.Wilkinson-State Bar NO.

24102942-C Wilkinson@thompsoncoe.com-700 N.Pearl Street-Plaza of the Americas-25th FloorDallas,Texas 75201-2832;(ll)Selim Hassan Taherzadeh-Taherzadeh & Taherzadeh,P.L.L.C.

15851 N.Dallas Parkway-suite 410-Addison,Texas 75001

SeerDOUGLASS v.UNITED SERVICE AUTO ASS'N,79 F.3d 1415 at 1428-29,nl6,nl7(5th Cir.1996)

See:Baker v.Putnal,75 F.3d 190 at 196(5th Cir.l996);See:Vanderbilt Mortgage 8r Fin.Inc. v.Flores,

692 F.3d 358,369-370(5th Cir.2012)(fraudlent lien,deeds claims in real property records) Tex.Civ.

Prac.&Rem.Code§ 12.002

‘W.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINIONS BELOW

1

JURISDICTION

2

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

3

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

4

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

5-5(a)(b)(c)( F)(g)(I)

CONCLUSION

5

6,

INDEX TO APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS-FIFTH CIRCUIT

APPENDIX B

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF

TEXAS-DALLAS

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX F

V.

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

CASES

PAGE NUMBER

l)Boddie v.Connecticut,401 U.S.371,91 S.C.t.780 at 784-85,28 L.E.d.2d 113 (1971)

2)M.L.B. v.S.J.L....519 U.S.102,106-107,117 S.C.t.555 at 556-57,136 L.E.d.2d 473 (1996)

3)Vanderbilt Mortgage & Fin.Inc. vFlores,692 F.3d 358,369-370(5th Cir.2012)

.5

.5

5(a)

4)Ojedade Toca v. Wise,748 S.W.2d 449,451(Tex. 1988)

5)Ojedade Toca v.Wise,748 S.W.2d 449 at 450-51 (quoting 66 Am.Jur.2d Records and Recording Laws§48

(1973)

■5(a)

6)Chon Tri v.J.T.T.162 S.W.3d 552,556(Tex.2005)

5(b)

7)Pasley v.Pasley,2005 WL. 1992255*,Tex.App.LEXIS 6680*12-13(Tex.App. Amarillo Aug.l8,2005)(citing

Lesikar v.Rappeport,33 S.W.3d 282,302(Tex.App.Texarkana 2000,pet.Denied).......................................... 5(b)

STATUTES AND RULES

42 U.S.C.§1983; 42 U.S.C.ADA,§ 12131-34,Title II of the Americans with Disability Act.of 1990

18 U.S.C.§1001

FED.R.CIV.PROC. 12(b) (6)

FED.R.CIV.PROC. 9(b)

28 U.S.C.§ 636 (b),(l)

TEXAS CONST:

ART.1,§§17;19

OTHER

Tex.Civ.Prac. &Rem.Code.§ 12.002 (a),(b)

Tex.Rule of Civ.Proc.Rule 190,Level 2

VI

CASES

Page Numbers

8)(citing J.T.T. v.Chon Tri,lll S.W.3d 680,684(Tex.App.-Houston[lst Dist.]2003]Rev'd on othergrounds.

162 S.W.3d 552(Tex.2005)

5(b)

9)(citing Lesikar,33 S.W.3d at 302(citing International Bankers Life Ins.Co., v. Holloway,368 S.W.2d 567,

581-82(Tex.l963)(emphasis added)

5(c)

10)Flagg Brother's Inc. VBrooks,436U.S.149,98 S.C.t.1729,56 LE.d.2d 185;Jackson v.Metropolitan

Edison Co.419 U.S..345,95S.C.t.449,42 L.E.d.2d 477(1974)

5(F)

ll)Adickers v.S.H.Kress Co. 398 U.S.144,152,90 S.C.t.1598,1605,26 LE.d.2dl42(1970);quoting United

States v.Price,383 U.S.787,794,86 S.C.t.115,16 L.E.d.2d 267(1966)

5(F)

12)Hollis v.ltwamba County Loans,657 F.2d 746(5th Cir.1981)

■5(F)

13)Dennisv.Sparks,449 U.S.24,101 S.C.t.183,66 L.E.d.2d 185(1980)

.5(F)

14)Sniadach vFamily Finance Corp.395 U.S.337,89 S.C.t.1820,23 LE.d.2d 349(1969)(state created

Garnishment procedure);Mitchellv.W.T.Grant Co.,416U.S.600,94 S.C.t.1895,40 LE.d.2d 406(1974)

(execution of a vendor's lein to secure disputed property);North Georgia Finishing Inc. VDichem,

Inc. 419 U.S.601,95 S.C.t.719,42 LE.d.751(1975)(state created garnishment procedure);Lugarv.

Edmonson Oil Co.,.

U.S.__ 102S.C.t.2744,73 L.E.d.2d 482(1982)(state replevin statute)..5(F)

15)Hollis v.ltawamba County Loans,supra 657 F.2d at 750.

5(F)

16)Lugar v.Edmondson Oil Co.,supra

■5(F)

17)Whitaker v.Cityof Houston,963 F.2d 831,836(5,h Cir.1992)

5(g)

18)DOUGLASSv.UNITEDSERVICEAUTOASS'N,79F.3d 1415 at 1428-29,nl6,nl7(5th Cir.1996) 5(1)

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 courts:

A

The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at Appendix__

the petition and is

[ d reported at ..Franklin v Riairfins F App'^AI^^th r.ir 7090) ; or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendix B

the petition and is

[x] reported at.TTnitpH Static v WiknnftfU F ?H

Pir 1 Qft&Tj

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

[ ] For cases from state courts:

The opinion of the highest state court to review the merits appears at

Appendix_____ to the petition and is

[ ] reported at

; or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

The opinion of the _

court

appears at Appendix

to the petition and is

[ ] reported at

; or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

1.

7

to

to

JURISDICTION

[x] For cases from federal coarts:

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

was OCTOBER 29,2020------------ -

[x] No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.

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

Appeals on the following date:____________

, and a copy of the

order denying rehearing appears at Appendix

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

to and including-------------- ------------ (date) on

(date)

in Application No.__ A

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

COURT RULE 29.4(a),service shall be made on the Solicitor General of the United States,

Room 5616,Department of Justice,950 Pennsylvania Ave.N.W.Washington,D.C.20530-0001

[ ] For cases from state courts:

The date on which the highest state court decided my case was

A copy of that decision appears at Appendix______

[ 3 A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied on the following date:

, and a copy of the order denying rehearing

appears at Appendix

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

to and including____

(date) on

(date) in

Application No.__ A

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1257(a).

2

%

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

1) UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION,ART.VII,AMENDMENT 1 {1791}

2) UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION,ART.IV,AMENDMENT 1,§2,CL.1{1791}

3)UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION,ART,VII,AMENDMENT V {1791}

4)UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ART.XIV AMENDMENT {1868}

FEDERAL STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED:

4) 42 U.S.C.§1983

5)18 U.S.C.§1001

6)FED.R.CIV.PROC.12 (b) (6)

7)FED.R.CIV.PROC.9(b)

8)28 U.S.C.5636 (b) (1)

TEXAS CONSTITUTION:

9)ART.1,§17

10)ART.1,§19

1 l)Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code.§12.002

12)Texas Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 190, Level 2.

3

a

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This case arises out of an "Burglary and theft of my "Dead Mother's house at 1911 McBroom St.-Dallas,Texas

75212, {property},inwhich she originally owned.Plaintiff alleges that while he was in Texas prison for 25 years

now was parole in October 19,2016,my mother was in HCR Manner Care Nursing Home with severe bodily,

mentally injuries consisting of a "Stroke",was unable to Talk,or Walk,or Write anything where she was treated

until her "Death" from 1997 until OCTOBER 30,2009. On 09-26,2008 these property deeds was illegally forged

transferred into my illegitimate "SON'S",Tarrance L.Hawkins name without my mother knowledge or her

original signature,or her consent(at 1-4), On 09-22,2010,Tarrance gave or sold this property deeds to

CYNTHIA BRYANT",she then sold this "Fraudulent property deeds to Dallas Area Habitat for Humanity,

Dallas Neighborhood Alliance for Habitat(Charities),On September 30,2010,on July 30,2015(Charities)

sold these property deeds to TEKLE GIRMA ABEBE;WOLDER MARIAM ASTER,the current(Residents)

of this property(at 1-4) On May 1,2019,Plaintiff filed this pro-se civil complaint on behalf of his "Dead mother

"Estate",himself as the sole heir living to this property,against these named defendant's(at 1-4,5)

IT Alleges in Relevant Part:

I,am the sole heir living to this property,these acts by these named defendant's where conspired to steal,or

gain control of this heirship property("Fraudulently,Maliciously"),in violation of the U.S.Const.5th;14th

Amendments;42 U.S.C.§1983;Tex.Const.Art.l,§§17;19(at l),(at 5) Charities and Residents (Defendant's)move

to dismiss plaintiffs complaint for failure to state a claim as Time-barred,and alternatively for a more definite

statement(see:docs 9;12),plaintiff objected in response,asserting that he stated a claim because these"

"Defendant's" committed crimes in violation of 18 U.S.C.§1001,(docs.ll at 2;docs.l4 at 2)

4.

«

«■»

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

(a) a United States court of appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the decision of another

United States court of appeals on the same important matter;has decided an important federal

question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a state court of last resort; or has so far departed

from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings,or sanctioned such a departure by a lower

court, as to call for an exercise of this Court's supervisory power

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY:

Whether these civil court's of the United States and each of the States belong to the people of this

country,that no person can be denied access to these court's for a trial or an appeal,because he cannot

pay a court fee,finance a bond risk a penality or afford to hire an attorney? Claims for deprivation of

Constitutional rights of access to courts must allege both;(l)Underlying cause of action whether

anticipated or lost,and (2)Ofificial acts frustating litigation. 1/

1)Petitioner's reliance on Boddie v.Connecticut,401 U.S.,371,91 S.C.t.780 at 784-85,28 L.E.d.2d 113

(1971);M.L.B. v.S.J.L....,519 U.S.102,106-107,117 S,C,t,555 at 556-57,136 L.E.d.2d 473(1996);42 U.S.C.§

1983;42 U.S.C.ADA,§12131-34,Title II of the Americans with Disability Act.of 1990;USCA Const.lst;

Art.4,§2 CL.l;5th;14th Amend{s};Tex.Const.Art.l,§§17;19;Level 2 of Rule 190 Tex.R.Civ.Proc.;Tex.

Civ.Prac.8fRem.Code§12.002;EXH'S of all ORDERS USDC N0.3:19-CV-1049-C-BH dated February

12,2020 United States District Judge SAM R. Cummings;United States Court of Appeals-FIFTH CIR.

N0.20-10224 dated October 29,2020 before KING,SMITH,and WILSON,Circuit Judges

5.

i I

REASON FOR GRANTING THE PETITION:

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY:

Intent to cause another to suffer;(A) physical injury; (B)Financial injury;(C)Mental anguish or emotional

Distress;lntent that the document or other records be given the same legal effect as a court record or

Document of a court created by or established under the constitution or laws of this state or the United

States or another entity listed in Section 37.01 Penal Code,evidencing a vaild lein or deeds claim against

Real or personal property or an interest in real or personal property. 2/

2)Petitioner's reliance on Vanderbilt Mortgage & Fin. Inc. VFIores,692 F.3d 358,369-370(5th Cir.2012)

(fraudulent lien,deeds claims in real property records);Tex.Civ.Prac. &Rem.Code.§12.002;(a)One who

Violates the fraudulent lien statute may become liable to an injured person to the greater of $10,000,or

The actual damages cause by such violation in addition to incurring liability for court cost,reasonable

Attorney's fees, and even exemplary damages as determined by the Court,§12.002 (b)

5(a)

REASON FOR GRANTING:

ARGUMENTAND AUTHORITY:

Applying the discovery rule in such cases would notdistort the purpose of the recording system and

Would not disserve public policy,Rather, it would futherthe purpose of the recording system to protect

Property ownersfrom fraud by providing land owners with the means to deterthe procurement of

Fraudulent claims on their land and with a form of compensation when such fraudulent claims occur.

The purpose of recording law is "not to give protection to perpetrators of fraud.3/To the contrary,the

Purpose of recording laws is "notify subsequent purchasers of the rights that the recorded instruments

Are intended to convey",Texas jurisprudence {3d ed.} Records and Recording Laws§19(May 2010),and

To protect" intending purchasers and encumbrances...against the evils of secertleins,deedsand

Subsequent frauds attendant upon them.4/

3}Petitioner's reliance on OjedadeToca v.Wise,748 S.W.2d449,451(Tex.l988)

4)Petitioner's reliance on Ojedade Toca v.Wise,748 S.W.2d 449 at 450-51(quoting 66 Am.Jur.2d

Records and Recording Laws§48(1973).

5W

REASON FOR GRANTING THE PETITION:

ARGUMENT ANDAUTHORITY:

CIVILCONSPIRACYTOCOMMITFRAUD:

The elements for civil conspiracy are "[1] Two or more persons;[2] An object to be accomplished;[3] A

Meeting of the minds on the objector course of action;[4] One or more overt acts;[5J damages as

Aproximate result 5/ A conspiracy may be established by circumstantial evidence. 6/An agreement

Between parties on a course of action need not be formal but may be tacit.7/ It is also not essential

That each conspirator have knowledge of the details....inference of concerted action may be drawn

From participation in the transactions and from the enjoyment of the fruits of the transactions. 8/

5)Petitioner's reliance on Chon Tri v.J.T.T.162 S.W.3d 552,556(Tex.2005)

6)Petitioner's reliance on Pasley v.Pasley,2005WL, 1992255* Jex.App.LEXIS 6680* 12-13(Tex.App.

Amarillo Aug.l8,2005)(citing Lesikar v.Rappeport33 S.W.3d 282,302(Tex.App.Texarkana 2000,pet.

Denied)

7)Petitioner's reliance on (citing J.T.T.v Chon Tri .111 S.W.3d 680,684(Tex.App.-Houston[lst Dist]2003]

Rev'don other grounds 162 S. W.3d 552(Tex.2CX)5)

8)Petitioner's reliance on (citing Lesikar,33 S.W.3d at 302)(citing International Bankers Life Ins.Co. V

Holloway,368 S.W.2d 567,581-82(Tex.l963)(emphasis added)

5(C)

REASON FOR GRANTING THE PETITION:

ARGUMENTAND AUTHORITY:

CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS UNDER 42 U.S.C.§1983:

Section 1983 does not reach all constitutional injuries,but onlythose cause by person acting "under

Color of state law" 42 U.S.C.§1983.9/ To act undercolor of state law for§1983 purpose does not

Require,however,that defendants be an officer of the state,private acts or conduct may incur liability

Under§1983 if the individual is a willful participant in jointaction with state or its agents." 10/ of

Course the requisite joint participation" envisioned in Adickes goes beyond the mere use of the state

Court system by private litigants in the course of an ordinary lawsuit. As stated by this court in 11/

No state action is involved when the state merely opens its tribunals to private litigants"with the

Context of individual dispute resolution, a private party acts undercolor of state law only when

There is corruption of judicial power by private l'rtigants.12/ In Dennis v.Sparks,449U.S.24,101 S.C.t.

183,66 LE.d.2d 185(1980) for example the state court litigants bribed the judge and obtainedan

Injuction which deprived their adversary of property the private individuals were considered to

S(J)

Have acted undercolor of state law for §1983 purposes,regardless of the judge's immunity or

Liability. The Supreme Court has characterized the private use of state legal procedures for the

Purpose of the Fourteenth Amendments as attributable to the state only in situations where the

State has created a system which allows state officials to attach property on exparte application 13/

A recent decision of this court is illustrative.14/ In Hollis v.ltawamba County Loans supra, an automobile

Buyer who claimed that his car was seziedfrom him by an abuse of the state replevin proceeding was

Held to have stated a presumptively valid §1983 claim for damages through improper use of state

Power,657 F.2d 750,in Hollis the creditor was acting pursuant to a state statute which permitted pre -

Judgment seizure of property without benefit of a hearing. It is these exparte,pre-judgment situations

That the courts have found the state is itself participating in the deprivation of property,and the constit­

utional requirements of due process apply- private misuse of a state statute alone does not describe

Conductthat can be attributed to the state it is the procedural scheme by the statute that is state

Action,thereforesubject to constitutional restraints. The absence of a full adversary adjudication

Prior to seizure triggers the constitutional due process issue since state officers typically act jointly

With a private creditor in securing the property in dispute. 15/

9)Petitioner's reliance on Flagg Brother's Inc. VBrooks,436U.S.149,98 S.C.t.1729,56 L.E.d.2d 185(1978);

Jackson v.Metropolitan Edison Co.419 U.S.345,95 S.C.t.449,42 L.E.d.2d 477(1974)

^Petitioner's reliance on Adickes v.S.H.KressCo398U.S.144,152,90 S.C.t.1598,1605,26 LE.d.2d 142

(1970);quoting United States v.Price,383 U.S.787,794,86 S.C.t.ll5,16LE.d.2d 267(1966)

11)Petitioner's reliance on Hollis v.ltawamba County Loans,657 F.2d 746(5th Cir.1981)

^Petitioner's reliance on Dennis v.Sparks,449U.S.24,101S.C.t. 183,66 L.E.d.2d 185(1980)

^Petitioner's reliance on Sniadach v.Family Finance Corp.,395 U.S337,89 S.C.t.1820,23 L.E.d.2d 349

(1969)(state created Garnishment procedure);Mitchellv.W.T.GrantCo.,416U.S.600,94 S.C.t.1895,40

L.E.d.2d406(1974)(executionofa vendor's lein to secure disputed property);North Georgia Finishing

Inc. VDichem,lnc.419U.S.601,95 S.C.t.719,42 L.E.d.2d 751(1975)(state created garnishment procedure);

Lugar v.Edmondson Oil Co.,.

U.S.___ 102S.C.t.2744,73 LE.d.2d 482(1982)(state replevin statute)

14)Petitioner's reliance on Hollis v.ltawamba County Loans,supra 657 F.2d at 750

^Petitioner's reliance on Lugar v.Edmondson Oil Co.,supra

J'Cfj

REASON FORGRANTING THE PETITION:

ARGUMENT ANDAUTHORITY:

MOTION TO AMEND:

Plaintiff asks this Supreme Court to "ORDER", GRANT" this motion to Amend this State statute Texas

Civil Practice & Remedies Code.§12.002fraudulent leins,deeds claims and 18 U.S.C.§1001FRAUDAND

FALSE STATEMENTS claims ,this court stated court of Appeals reviews district courts denial of the

Motion to amend for abuse of discretion 16/

^Petitioner's reliance on Whitaker v.City of Houston,963 F.2d831,836(5th Cir.1992)

REASON FOR GRANTING THE PETITION:

ARG U M ENT AN D AUTHORITY:

SUA SPONTE DISMISSALOF UNSERVED DEFENDANTS:

Plaintiff Thomas argues this Supreme Court that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the N.D.Diist

Court errored because plaintiff sentthese summons to William D.Hall;Neal Tomlin trustees to 2800

North Hampton Road-Dallas,Texas 75212 at Dallas AREA HABITATFOR HUMANITY Inc. And Dallas

NEIGBORHOOD ALUANCE,neverreturned certified mail NO.7018 2290 0001 2483 1293 and to

Tarrance LHawkins-3424 Willowcrest Ln.-Dallas,Texas 75233-certified mail N0.7018 2290 0001 2483

1309,returned on 06-08/2019,to CYNTHIA BRYANT-1735 Redbird Ln.-Dallas,Texas 75241- certified mail

N0.7018 2290 0001 2483 1316-on 06-06/2019 returned unclaim.

See:Exhibits of these certified mailings,Therefore these defendants where served properly,the N.D.Dist.

Court refuse to enter judgment by default against these named defendants inviolation of Fed.R.Civ.P

12(a) (2)or(3) 17/

ircw

17)Petitioner's reliance on DOUGLASS v.UNITEDSERVICEAUTOASS'N,79F.3d 1415 at 1428-29,nl6,nl7

(5th Cir.1996)

S' Ci)

PRAYER FOR RELIEF:

WHEREFORE,PREMISES,CONSIDERES,Petitioner prays that this Honorable Supreme Court "GRANTS"

this writ of certiorari,remand this case back to the N.D.Dist.Court and "ORDER" to allow plaintiff to file

an motion to amend,Discovery/Evidentiary hearing,jury trial to prove these property deeds was illegally

"Forged,transferred into my illegitimate "SON",Tarrance L.Hawkins name without my "Dead mother's

original signature,or her consent,by Tex.Civ.Prac.&Rem.Code.§12.002,whether these documents,other

records is fraudulent court records of a fraudulent deeds claim against real or personal property or

interest in real or personal property,because the N.D.Dist.Court,the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals,has

errored,violated plaintiffs rights of access to the courts under the U.S.Const.lst;Art.4.§2;CL.l;5th;14th

Amend{s};42 U.S.C.§1983;42 U.S.C.ADA,§12131-34,Title II of American with Disability Act.of 1990

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

Date:

March 19,2021

6

iA