Petition for Writ of Certiorari — In Re Johnny Ray Bennett, Petitioner

Provided lb

i

Cm MIU

20-7817-

For Mailing, by

NO.: 18-5991

NO.: 20-14505-D

Prig. Case No.: 6:12-cv-01716-GAP-KRS

IN THE. SUPREME COURT

OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

-

Supreme oouu, U.3.

FILED

APR - 6 202'

In re Johnny Ray Bennett

Plaintiff

^pwr.F OF THE CLERK—

VS .

Mr. Eddie Bell

Mrs. ■ Leah Ransbottom

Mr. Michael Hutchenson, et. al

Defendants 1

/

PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION

APPEALS FROM THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

COURT OF APPEALS

RECEIVED

APR 2 0 2021

9r,^lM°EFcT5^RsK

Johnny Ray Bennett #623036

Central Fla. Reception Center-MU

7000 H.C. Kelley Road

Orlando, Florida 32831

NO.: 18-5991

Appeal No. 20-14505-d

Orig. Case No. 6:12-cv-0176-GAP-KRS

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

In re Johnny Ray Bennett - Plaintiff

vs.

Mr. Eddie Bell

Defendants

Mrs. Leah Ransbottom

Mr. Michael Hutchenson, et. al

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION

THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION

Johnny Ray Bennett #623036

Central Florida Reception Center-MU

7000 H.C. Kelley Road *

Orlando, Florida 32831

k/5

QUESTION PRESENTED

SHOULD AN INDIGENT PLAINTIFF THAT'S SUING

THREE DEFENDANTS BE PERMITTED TO REOPEN HIS

JUDGMENT IF HE POSSESS THE TWO COMPONENTS OF

GONZALEZ VS. CROSBY?

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

FED. CASES

PAGE NUMBER

Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722,

111 S. Ct. 2546 (1991)

735,

740,

115 L. Ed.

Gonzalez vs. Crosby, 545 U.S. at 534 (2005)

Haines v. Kerner,

1972).......................... .

2D 640,

8

5

404 U.S. 519, 92 S. Ct. 594 (U.S. Ill.

............................................................................ ..

6, 8

Heck vs. Humphrey, 521 U.S. '477, 114 S. Ct. 2364

(1994)

Mantle v. State,

Miller vs. Florida, 107 S.Ct. 2445; 96 L. Ed. 2D 351, 48 U.S.C.

423 (1987).......................................................................... "......................................

Preiser vs. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 36 L. Ed. 2D 439, 93 S. Ct.

1827 (1973) at No. 15.........................................................................................

Ritter vs. Smith, 811 F. 2d 1398, 1340 (CA. 11th Cir. 1987)

7

Smith vs. Bennett, 365 U.S. 708, 712, 81 S. Ct. 895 (1961)

6

Trevino vs. Thaler, 133 S. Ct. 1911 (2013)

6

Wilkinson vs. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81, 125 S. Ct. 1242, 161 L. Ed.

2D 253, 254 (2005).......................................................................................

STATE CASES

Green v. State, 887 So. 2d 1089, 1090 (Fla. 2004)

6

Hersey v. State, 831 So. 2d 679, 680 (5DCA 2002)

5

Spencer vs. State, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)

4

Taylor v. State, 818 So. 2d 544, 546 550 (2DCA 2002)

5

STATUTES AND RULES

18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)

6, 8

28 U.S.C. § 1251

2, 3

28 U.S.C. § 1343 (a) (3)

4,5

28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3)

5

42 U.S.C. § 1983

6, 7

Art. Ill, U.S.C.A

3

Fla. Const. Art. 1, Sec. 10

6

F.R.C.P. Rule 60 (b) (3)

4

F.R.C.P. Rule 60(b)(6)

5

F.S. 775.24(3)(c)

F.S. 794.011(3)

5

F.S. 810.02(b) (2)

.5

U.S.A. Art. I, Sec. 10, cl. 1

6

U.S. Const. Amend. 11

3

U.S. Sup. Ct. Rule 20

3

U.S. Sup. Ct. Rule 22.1

3

OTHER

"2002 enactments"

7

if

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINIONS BELOW

1

JURISDICTION

2

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

1-7

STATEMENT OF CASE

3-8

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

13

CONCLUSION

7-8

INDEX TO APPENDIXES

APPENDIX A ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

APPENDIX B FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

APPENDIX C STATE TRIAL COURT

APPEDNIX D UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

APPENDIX E UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

LIST OF PARTIES

[ ] All parties appear in the caption of the case on the Cover

page of the next page

[x] 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:

1. )

Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals

2.)

Florida Supreme Court

3.)

State Trial Court

4.)

United States District Court

A Corporate Disclosure Statement as required by Sup. Ct. Rule 29.6

is referred to the previous Motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis in the United States Court of Appeals, filed November 23,

2020 and December 9,

2020.

The U.S.

District Court and the 5th

District Court of Appeal has no interest in the outcome of this

Appeal.

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION

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

OPINIONS BELOW

[i/f For cases from federal courts:

The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at Appendix (P\ $-) to

the petition and is

AjM

[ ] reported at

; or,

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

\\X is unpublished.

The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendix

the petition and is

D

V/a

[ ] reported at

; or,

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

t/f is unpublished.

[V\ For cases from state courts:

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

Appendix_&__to the petition and is

//ft

[ ] reported at

; or,

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

Wfis unpublished.

The opinion of the_

appears at Appendix

^ Lo* tA p>. Su prgm-fe

B to the petition and is

[ ] reported at

k

; or,

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

[vT is unpublished.

(O

court

to

JURISDICTION

[vf For cases from federal courts:

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

was 2-1-2.021 • 3-q~2Q 21

[yf 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 a/M .

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

to and including

(date) on

(date)

in Application No. Nik A v/A .

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

[yfFor cases from state courts:

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

A copy of that decision appears at Appendix B

.

1~2.5-2.QU

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

2-1 £-20)1

, and a copy of the order denying rehearing

appears at Appendix_H.

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

A)/*

to and including_____aJ /A

(date) on

(date) in

Application No.

A__aljlL.

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

U)

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Petitioner states that:

this action is invoking the Courts

Original Jurisdiction under Art.

United States.

Ill of the Constitution of the

See also 28 U.S.C. § 1251 and U.S. Const. Amend.

11; U.S. Sup. Ct. Rule 20 and Rule 22.1: addressed to an individual

Judge.

PROCEEDINGS ON RECORD

The prior

proceedings

are

referred to

the

Certiorari/All

Writs Petition filed on May 31, 2018 on pages 3, 4. Later Plaintiff

sought review back to this Court for permission for an extension

of time to file a rehearing filed 1-9-2020 and returned. Filed an

amended letter to extend the time filed on 1-21-2020. proceeded

with a Motion for Rehearing filed 3-13-2020. Lastly a Motion for

Demand for Judgment filed 9-4-2020; all returned. Proceeded to the

11th Circuit Court of Appeals on a Writ of Prohibition filed 1123-2020,

but

denied

and/dismissed

on

2-1-2021;

Coleman & see Harris vs. Reed 489 U.S. 255,

109 S. Ct. 1038

3-9-2021;

See

103 L. Ed. 2d. 308,

(1989).

With these rulings, Plaintiff was able to proceed with this

Writ of Prohibition filed this

TJctt day of March 2021. These are

extraordinary circumstances that requires an extraordinary remedy.

There is no new arguments or Constitutional challenges that have

not been discussed or

touched upon.

This

petition of Writ

of

Prohibition shall be plain and concise with the information already

Cl)

acquired; that requires an adjudication of the merits.

GROUND: ONE

PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO HIS

IMMEDIATE RELEASE FROM UNLAWFUL CUSTODY

Plaintiff Case commenced as a Civil Rights

suit under 28

U.S.C. §1331 and 1343(a)(3). From this standpoint, he is seeking

relief from this Unlawful Custody. See pages 4, 5 of Certiorari/All

Writs Petition filed May 31, 2018. see also Appx.

(C). This cause

warrants the exercise of this Court's discretionary powers and

that for this,

adequate relief cannot be obtained in any other

form or from any other court. The Circuit Court barred Plaintiff

from filing any motions or petitions unless

accompanied by an

attorney. Spencer vs. State, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)

The United States District Court basically barred the filings

until I pay the statutory filing fee. See Appx.

(D); U.S.C.A.

14th

Amendment,

of

See

as

did

the

11th

Circuit

Court

Certiorari/All Writs pages 4, 6. See Appx.

For

instance,

the

Plaintiff

Appeals.

(Al). See Coleman.

appealed to

the

11th Circuit

because he qualified for his case and Judgment to be

(Reopened."

All along he argued in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 that the State Court

committed fraud of the Court pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 60(b)(3).

Without

committing

fraud

on

the

Court,

they

would

not

have

prevailed with Summary Judgment by the District Court. See Appx.

(D) .

Fraud on the Court is one Component that was consistently

proven in his first Federal hearing in these proceeding for his

Federal Habeas Corpus in 2012. Later on the llteh Circuit Court of

Appeals made a clerical error on one of their Orders.

(A) .

Now

these

two

components

mandate

an

See Appx.

"Extraordinary

Circumstance" that requires relief in Gonzalez vs. Crosby, 545 U.S.

At 534

(2005);

lh,

9-10 to reopen a habeas judgment pursuant to

Rule 60(b)(6). See 28 U.S.C. §1343 (a) (3) .

Aside from this, there is another extraordinary circumstance.

Plaintiff is claiming he's being held against his will. It's plain

to see that it's on the face of the record. Plaintiff involuntarily

plead guilty to the offences of Armed Burglary of a Dwelling F.S.

810.02(b)(2)

and Sexual Battery F.S.

Sentenced to 35

years

sentences

designated

and

794.011(3);

concurrently with

a

Sexual

(2)

Convicted and

10-year min.

Predator:

man.

775.24 (3) (c) .

Involuntary plea Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(a) (2) (ii)C.; Fla. R. Crim.

P.

Rule 3.171(a) (A) (2)

filed May 31,

and

later

2018; when they were under Constitutional scrutiny

became

sentence him.

See Certiorari/All Writs petition page 8

unconstitutionally

"invalid"

to

convict

or

See page 7 of Certiorari/All Writs petition filed

May 31, 2018. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c) (3) . He has now been restrained

for 21 calendar years when he only scored out to 15 yrs. at 180

pts. See Appx.

(C) . This was illegal. U.S.C.A. 14th Amendment. See

Hersey v. State, 831 So. 2d 679, 680 (5DCA 2002) ; Taylor v. State,

(5)

818 So. 2d 544, 546 550 (2DCA 2002), and Green v. State, 887 So.

2d 1089, 1090 (Fla. 2004). This; What the State did which was the

first Ex Post Facto of causing a Defendant to be disadvantaged by

statutes that were invalid.

28 U.S.C. § 1343(a) (3); 42 U.S.C.

1983; and Fla. Const. Art. I, sec. 10. Now for the U.S.

§

District

Court to "AFFIRM" what the Circuit Court illegally and unlawfully

accomplished made it a "Second" Ex Post Facto violation. See U.S.

Question # 5 in Certiorari/All Writs petition filed May 31, 2018;

See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h). Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to his

immediate release from unlawful custody and because the District

Courts Judgment was based on a "defective foundation"; point blank.

U.S.C.A. Art. I, sec. 10 CL. 1. See Appx.

(D).

"Integrity of the proceedings under Rule 60(b)(6)"

1)

The

State Court

(Defendants)

committed "Fraud on the

Court," Depriving Plaintiff of a fair federal hearing by failing

to relinquish the documents that was sufficient evidence to prove

he is unlawfully detained. See

2)

The

District

statute of limitation,

eligible

under

Humphrey's

the

Standard

Court

Misapplied

28

U.S.C.

§2254(d)'s

because Plaintiff was

then,

and is now

"Equitable

tolling

standard"

of

See

U.S.C.

Review.

28

of

Heck

vs.

§2244(B)(i)(ii);

Gonzalez vs. Crosby, id. at 488.

3)

The

11th Cir.

Court

of Appeals

did not

follow usual

procedure of issuance of a (COA); see Slack vs. McDaniel, Supra;

ft)

See Certiorari/All Writs Petition, pg. 6 at II.(b).

4)

The 11th Cir. Court of Appeals made a clerical error in

its Order. See Appx.

5)

(A)

The 11th Cir. Court of Appeals Judgment was contrary to

that of another Court of Appeals. See Certiorari/All writs petition

page 5; Appx. (Al, 4); 14th Amendment U.S.A.; 28U.S.C. §2253(c)(2).

6)

The District Court and the 11th Cir.

Court of Appeals

failed to afford the Appellant to appeal in a Civil Rights Case.

See 28 U.S.C. §1915 (a) (1) (4); Smith vs. Bennett 365 U.S. 708, 712,

81 S. Ct. 895 (1961).

OTHER CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE

The

Plaintiff

acknowledges

that

there

are

several

scenarios to persuade this Honorable Court of the illegality of a

detention that's on the face of the record by clear and convincing

evidence.

28

U.S.C.

§2254(e)(1);

28

U.S.C.

§2254 (a) (b) (1) (A) (B) (i) (ii) .

1)

The Statutes that the Plaintiff was Convicted and

Sentenced by were invalid at that moment in time,

"violated the

Single Subject Rule Art. Ill sec. 6 of the Fla. Const, and could

be addressed for the first time on Appeal as fundamental error.

Cf. F.S. 924.051(b)(3); Cf. State vs. Johnson 616 So. 2d 1 (Fla.

1993)

2)

Plaintiff cannot plea to an illegal sentence:

Stat. 775.24 (3) (c) :

(7)

Fla.

All three Defendants and or the 7th Judicial Court knew

or should have known of the Statutes Constitutionality;

and it

could not be considered that his involuntary plea to the charges

above were knowing and voluntary. Cf. Mantle vs. State 592 So. 2d

1190 (5th DCA 1992)

3)Therefore

Plaintiff

was

disadvantaged

invalidness or inapplicability of those statutes.

Cf.

by

the

Miller v.

Florida, 107 S. Ct. 2446; 96 L. Ed. 2d 351, 48 USC 423 (1987). Art.

I, §10, CL. 1, U.S.C.A.

So basically Plaintiff

is

suing

for his

freedom and

requesting this Court to exercise its Superior Discretional Powers

to grant the relief requested. To be exonerated; charges dropped,

because

of

the

deliberate

malicious

prosecution.

18

U.S.C.

§

3161(h).

In closing, Plaintiff is entitled to bring forth evidence in

his first Law Suit. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S. Ct. 594595- (U.S.

Ill.

ineffectiveness,

(2013);

1972);

entitled to a complete review of counsel

see C.f.

Trevino vs.

Thaler,

133

S.

Ct.

1911

entitled to appeal in a civil case without paying the

statutory filing fee. Smith vs. Bennett, 365 U.S. 708, 712, 81 S.

Ct.

895

(1961);

U.S.A.

14th Amendment.

See Writ of Prohibition

filed, page 6 on 11-23-2020 in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals;

while page 7 acknowledges that a plaintiff can reopen his Judgment

(five) years or more after its original Judgment,

(.8)

see Ritter vs.

Smith, 811 F. 2d 1398, 1341-1402 (CA. 11th Cir. 1987); 28 U.S.C. §

1343 (a)(3). See Appx.

(D). Whether a plaintiff needs a (COA) to

appeal in a civil case, I probably will never know; but one thing

I do know; see section 2 Chambers, Course of Lectures on English

Law

1767-1773,

at

6

(Liberty

may

be

violated

by

arbitrary

imprisonment without Law or the appearance of Law, or by a Lawful

Magistrate for an unlawful reason"), This is so... even when the

prisoner

is detained after a criminal trial

accordance

with

the

production

of

the

conducted in full

Bill

of

Rights.

Certiorari/All Writs filed May 31, 2018 pages 8-9., Appx.

See

(C).

Plaintiff never will be in this position of committing crimes,

again; but to only prevent them.

Being deprived deliberately of

life and liberty of the American Way; To be drug through the Courts

year after year; and to be taken from our Love ones much longer

than the Law called for applicably only made me Stronger and Wiser.

United States Laws and Rules provided the people of this Country

to be concisely liable for any wrong doing. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; on

page 13 is case authority pursuant to the Civil Rights Suit. See

also Certiorari/All Writs page 5.

THEREFORE,

intervene

Plaintiff

pursuant

constitutionality

to

and

28

prays

U.S.C.

that

§

retroactivity

this

Honorable

2403(a) (b)

of

the

of

"2002

the

(<0

(Al)

statutes

enactments",

Reverse its prior decision of denial on November 13,

Reverse the 11th Circuit last Judgment in Appx.

Court

2018

and

and release

Plaintiff from unlawful custody. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h).

Haines v.

Kerner,

404 U.S.

519,

92 S.

Ct.

594

(U.S.

Ill.

1972); Petitioner is a pro se Litigant, Layman in the science of

Law

and

should

not

be

held by

stringent

standards

of

formal

pleadings drafted by lawyers.

A

complete

review

is

necessary

to

prevent

a

fundamental

Miscarriage of Justice. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 735,

740, 115 L. Ed. 2D 640, 111 S. Ct. 2546 (1991) declining to apply

long presumption to Summary Dismissal Order). See Appx.

(Al)

OATH

I DECLARE

(or Certify,

Verify,

or State)

under penalty of

perjury that the foregoing Writ of Prohibition is true and correct.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully prays for the granting

of this Writ of Prohibition and to immediately be released or

discharge him from unlawful custody or incarceration. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 3161 (h) .

Jolmny Ray Bennett #623036

Central Fla. Reception Center-MU

7000 H.C. Kelley Road

Orlando, FL 32831

(io)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing

Writ of Prohibition has been placed into the hands of Institutional

authorities fro Mailing via U.S. Mail, First Class, postage pre­

paid to: The Supreme Court of the United States at First Street,

N.E. Washington D.C. 205423, The Attorney General's Office at 444

Seabreeze Blvd, 5th Floor, Daytona Beach,.FL 32118, Florida Supreme

Court,

500

Solicitor

South

General

Duval

Street,

of

United

Pennsylvania Avenue,

the

Tallahassee,

States;

Dept,

FL

32399-1927;

of

Justice

950

N.W. Washington DC 20530-0001 on this

day of /Vfar^X. ’ ; 2021.

Mail Box-Rule: Thompson vs. State, 761 So. 2d 324, 326 (Fla.

2000)

*Attached for Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

and Writ of Prohibition, with the (6) month Bank statements.

Johnny jjay Bennett #623036

Central Fla. Reception Center-MU

7000 H.C. Kelley Road

Orlando, FL 32831

(a)

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

In re Johnny Ray Bennett

Plaintiff

Case No.: 18-5991

Appeal No.: 20-14505-D

Orig. Case No.: 6:12-cv-0176-GAP-KRS

vs.

Provided Ts C^€c-

Mr. Eddie Bell

Mr. Leah Ransbottom

Mr. Michael Hutcheson et. al.

Defendants

^

nn

For Mailing, by

/

AFFIDAVIT CERTIFICATE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that Johnny Ray Bennett, DC# 623036, has the

sum of

as of Marck,i^i

, 2021 on account to his credit

at Central Florida Reception Center-M/U. I further certify that he

has the following securities to his credit according to the records

maintained by the aforesaid prison/institution, to wit: CFRC-M/U.

Is/

Y>gV(\veer> UV^AeeJ X\k feoirviPi

Print Name and Title

(it)

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

1.)

Plaintiff has diligently sought relief in the Federal Courts

since 2011; while being advised that he had to sue for his freedom.

He recently realized that "Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction"

was a touchy subject that allowed him to be hindered entirely, so

it was excluded in this last petition. He still feels his detention

wasn't fully Justified.

2.)

Plaintiff

components

fits

that

the

this

eligibility

Court

Circumstance" in Gonzalez vs.

requirements

considers

Crosby,

an

of

the

two

"Extraordinary

545 U.S. At 534

(2005)

to

reopen the U.S. District Court Judgments. F.R.C.P. Rule 60(b) (6);

28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3).

3.) Plaintiff diligently followed the dictates of Heck vs. Humphrey,

512 U.S. 477, 114 S. Ct. 2364

(1994); Preiser vs. Rodriguez, 411

U.S.

93 S.

475,

36 L.

Ed.

2d 439,

Ct.

1827 at No.

15;

and Cf.

Wilkinson vs. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81, 125 S. cT. 1242, 161 L. Ed.

2D 253, 254 (2005); 28 U.S.C.§ 2241(c)(3).

4. )

And because the "Defendants committed fraud on the Court"

pursuant to Thompson v.

Greene,

427 F.

3d 263

(4th Cir.

2005);

U.S.C.A., 14th Amendment; 28 U.S.C. § 2106; F.R.C.P Rule 60 (b) (3) .

18 U.S.C. § 3161(h).

03)