Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Charles Anthony Dread, Petitioner v. Maryland State Police

In The

Supreme Court of the Anited States

4

CHARLES A. DREAD,

Petitioner,

VS.

MARYLAND STATE POLICE,

Respondent.

On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari

To The United States Court Of Appeals

For The Fourth Circuit

>

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

a4

CHARLES A DREAD, Pro Se

14024 Gulliver’s Trail

Bowie, Maryland 20720

240-731-5294

RECEIVED ~

JUN - 1 2023

FFICE OF THE CLERK

SUPREME COURT, U.S. }

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

(1) Was the Trial Court’s denial of the Petitioner’s

Motion for Summary Judgment and Request for Hearing without granting the Petitioner a Hearing he requested, legally correct when Maryland Rule 2-

311(f) requires the Trial Court to hold a Hearing before rendering a decision disposing of a claim or a defense?

(2) Petitioner’s evidence raised substantial issues of

fact as to whether Petitioner was Fired/Retired because of a Subjective belief, and if so, whether his Discharge/Retirement eventuated from the Racial

Disadvantage permitting a White Woman in his Patrol

Unit where a Hand Gun was Found while assisting

this Person from and to Police Units. See, (Battle v.

Mathalland 490 BOA 9901 7 A Mice 10071 )

AVMURREEWVAACEEER EY “EUY Dewitt Uadhys we dhe ATSALODe LYE Dos

(3) Whether State Respondents knew or reasonably

should have known that the Action they took within

their shear of Official responsibility when they evicted

Petitioner from Public Market would violate Constitutional Rights of Petitioner and whether Respondents

took such Action with Malicious Intention to cause a

Deprivation of Constitutional Rights or Other Injury

to Petitioner are Questions of Fact. See, (Wilder v.

Irvin, 423 F. Supp. 639 (N.D. Ga. 1976.)

ru

LIST OF CASE PROCEEDINGS

CASE CAPTION:

APPEAL FROM ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING

(LAU CASE NO. U-31-00037)

COURTIN QUESTION _DOCKET'NO. DATEJUDGMENT

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

8)

9)

Circuit Court for Baltimore Co; Docket No. 94

Page 295; May 24, 1991 Case No. 91CG2266/

April 25, 1991

Circuit Court for Baltimore Co; Docket No. 94

Page 295; July 14, 1994 Dismissal Deferred

Court of Special Appeals Docket No. 94 Page 295;

Nov. 14, 1994 Notice of Appeal

Court of Appeals of Maryland Docket No. 264; Oct.

12, 1995 Petition Denied

U.S. Supreme Court Docket No. 95-7631 Jan. 11,

1996 Petition Filed

Circuit Court for Baltimore Co; Docket No. 94

Page 295; July 22, 1996 Respondent’s Motion

Denied

Circuit Court for Baltimore Co. Case No. 03-C-96-0

04893 April 10, 1997 Summary Judgment

Filed

Circuit Court for Baltimore Co Case No. 03-C-96-

004893 July 2nd, 1997 Vacated/Due Process

Denied

Section 735 ILCS 5/13-218 Revival of Judgement

Section 2-1601 20 Year Statute/Filed

10) US. District Court of MD. Memorandum Opinion

& May 25, 2018 Civil Action No. PX-18-1177

iii

LIST OF CASE PROCEEDINGS - Continued

11) US. District Court for MD. GLR 20 CV 0592

March 4th, 2020 Case No. 18-7063

12) U.S. Supreme Court Appeal October 18, 2021

Case No. 21-236/ Denied

13) U.S. District Court for MD. Order of the Court

June 06, 2022 No. GLR-22-01014

14) US. District Court for MD. Order of the Court July

18, 2022 No. GLR-22-01014

15) U.S. Supreme Court Notice of Appeal/Rule 18.1

August 11, 2022 From US. District Court

16) U.S. Court of Appeals (4thCT) Informal Brief October 14, 2022 No. 22-1861 (1:22-CV-01014

GLR)

17) U.S. Court of Appeals(4thCT) Disclosure Statement October 20, 2022 No. 22-1861 (1:22-CV-

01014 GLR)

18) U.S. Court of Appeals (4thCT) Order of the Court

February 28, 2023 No. 22-1861 (1-22-CV-

01014-GLR)

19) U.S. Court of Appeals (4th CT) MANDATE March

17, 2023 No. 22-1861(1:22-CV-01014-GLR)

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

US. District Court for Maryland

20) Summary Judgment

21) Unlawful Discrimination (Premeditated Malice)

iv

LIST OF CASE PROCEEDINGS -— Continued

RECORD EXTRACT

(ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING)

22) Decision and Order of the Superintendent Of the

Maryland State Police (Dated Exhibit 1(a)

April 25, 1991)

23) Report of the Administrative Hearing Board IAU

Case No. U-31-00037 (Exhibit 2(a) April 25,

1991)

24) Maryland State Police April 25, 1991 Notification

of Charges (Exhibit 2(b))

25) Petitioner’s Detailed Report of Personnel Complaint (Exhibit 3(a) April 25, 1991)

26) The Time-Line (Exhibit 3(b) April 25, 1991)

27) Found Property Report by Tpr. Sroka) November

1st, 199188

28) Accident Report No. T-66-18632 (Exhibit 4(a) April

25, 1991)

29) Property Held Record No. P-64615 (Exhibit 4(b)

April 25, 1991)

30) Incident Report T-66-18651 (Exhibit 4(c) April 25,

1991)

31) Found Property Report by Tpr. Paolucci Exhibit

4(d)) April 25, 1991

32) Complaint against Personnel (I[AU-31-00037) (Exhibit 5(a) November 1, 1988)

33) Interview of Mrs. Dwyer (Exhibit 5(a) November

01, 1988)

Vv

LIST OF CASE PROCEEDINGS -— Continued

34) Interview of Tpr. Paolucci (Exhibit 6(b) November

14, 1988)

35) Interview of Tpr. Sroka (Exhibit 6(c) November 15,

1988)

36) Interview of TFC Dread (Exhibit 6(d) (Dated

11/15/1988 & Dated 11/20/1988) November

20, 1988)

37) Maryland State Police (Exhibit 7(a) Official Miles

Message January 5, 1991)

38) Article 88B Section 15(b)16 Annotated Code April

25, 1991

39) Article 27 Section 733, Annotated Code April 25,

1991

40) Statement of Disability Form April 25, 1991

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

OPINIONS BELO W scccsreusesienatencaenievssnsasusnvaenanenesicnt 1

JURISDICTION... ceceeeceeeeeeseeeeeeeeeeeeees 2

CONSTITUTION AND STATUTORY PROVI-

SIONS INVOLVED ..00.... eee eeeceeeeeeeeeeeeneeeeeeeees 16

STATEMENT OF THE CASE... eens 20

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT............ 22

CONCLUSION .....0. ee eeecccceeceeeeeeeneeneeteeeaeeeeeteees 36

INDEX TO APPENDICES

US. Court of Appeals Order 2/23/2023 ................ App. 1

US. Court of Appeals Judgment Dated 2/23/23... App. 3

United States District Court For the District of

Maryland — Order .........:..cccccsssscceesseceessstceeeeeees App. 4

Letter Regarding Personnel Complaint Filed By

Mrs. DWYeP .........ceeeeeeeeeeeesseneceeeeeeesnseeeeeeeeeeenenees App. 7

Timeline ssiissicveusvesvmesscecncsucvonosonnseseseswosawaseets App. 14

vii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

CASES

Battle v. Mulholland C. A. Miss., 439 F-2d 321, 1971;

App. Separate Volume/Summary Judgment.......... 26

Bond v. Slavin, 157 Md. App. 340 (2004)........... cee 6

Burner v. Washington D.C., 399 F. Supp. 44, D.C.

1975; App. Separate Volume/ Summary Judg-

Francois v. Alberti Van & Storage Co., Inc., 404

A.2d 1058, App. Separate Volume/Summary

JUGQMEN... oe ececcccccccceeceseessseneeeeeceestscseanaaseneees 15, 29

Gross v. Pomerleau., 465 F. Supp. 1167, D.C.

M.D. 1979 ....ccccccceceseeccecccccsceeeceseeeeeeeeeeeseeeeceneeeseeeeenes 26

Hiob v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co., 440 Md. 466,

103 A.3d 596, 2014 Md. LEXIS 779 (2014) .............. 8

Houghton v. County Commissioners of Kent

County’s, 504 A.2d 1145 (1986) ...... cee eeeseetreeeeeeee 8

Town of Somerset v. Board, 245 Md. 52 (1966).......... 15

Wilder v. Irvin., 423 F. Supp. 639, D.C. GA. 1976,

Apps. Separate Volume/Summary Judgment ........ 26

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

US. Const. amend. I ssssissscnasssssvnevssveanveasaes 15, 16, 21, 29

US. Const. amend. XIV .o...ceccceeccesesesecenee 15, 17, 28, 29

STATUTES, RULES AND REGULATIONS

18 U.S.C. Section 3771(d)(3) ..........cccessssessesseeeereees 15, 21

Vili

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

Article 88B section 15(b)(16) of the Annotated

Code of Maryland sisssssssseavescconssverscrsnnsaonnsccstces 28

Annotated Code of Maryland, Article 27 section

TD rccsceiscsseasctaieiesnieNe ees eeeicciNeaekiseusmNauaeNawnsntes 6, 18, 29, 30

Maryland Rule 2311(f)...........cccccccccceeeessessnsseeeesense 6, 19

Maryland Rule 2601 wssassissssasssvcessisasesaenssaesvevesissvesasenats 7

MD RULE 7-207/Summary Judgment’s Memorandum (Separate Volume)..............ccccccccceeeeeeeees 5, 22

MD RULE 2-501.1 and 2/Summary Judgment,

Request for Hearing (Separate Volume) ...... 6, 19, 23

Md. Rule 8-204... ssssscassesssccesasgancicssascassesssansctstepserswoseceees 8

Md. Rule 8-308... eeeeesecceeeeseesseeecetceceseeseessusceeseeeess 8

Md. Rule 8-602... cceccceessessnsececeeceeeseeerersseeeeeeesers 9

Md. Rule 8-602(a)(3)............. sssermuccnmpememwensiecncees 8

Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Pro-

COMUILE 0... eecccccessesesssnsssnsneeeceeeceesensnaseeceeeeseeeuseeaaeeneas 15

Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Proce-

CULE... eeeccceecceceeseeseseeecesenssseceececeeesesaceaeeeeeesesenteeeees 15

Rule 2-582, 2-538, or 2-534........cccccccccceecesssssssseeseeeeees 19

TITLE 42 USC Section 1983... eee eeeeee ees 17,19

1

OPINIONS BELOW

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING BOARD REPORT

ACCUSED: CHARLES A. DREAD (0964)

COLLEGE PARK BARRACK “Q”

TAT] CASE NO. TI-81-00087 —

DATED: APRIL 25, 1991

(1) Violation of the Provision of the Agency’s Administrative Manual, Chapter 5, Section I, Sub-section

15-4. All reports submitted by Employee of this Agency

will be truthful; No employee shall knowingly report or

cause to be reported any false information.

(2) Violation of the Provision of the Agency’s Administrative Manual, Chapter 5, Section I, Sub-section

15-5. All reports submitted by Employees of this

Agency will be Complete and will not contain improper

ee Rn 6D En

or inaccurate information.

(3) Violation of the Provision of this Agency’s Administrative Manual, Chapter 5, Section I, Sub-section

34-0. Weapons shall not be. ... Handled in a careless

or imprudent fashion or contrary to Maryland State

Police policy.

(4) Violation of the Provision of the Agency’s Administrative Manual, Chapter 5, Section I, Sub-section

28-3. The Failure of a Police Employee to take appropriate action, either on or off duty, on the occasion of a

crime, disorder, or other condition deserving police or

Agency Administrative attention is considered neglect

of duty.

2

(5) Violation of the Provision of the Agency’s Administrative Manual, Chapter 5, Section I, Sub-section

21-0. Property which has been received as evidence in

connection with Investigations or which, for any other

reason, comes into custody of this Agency, will be processed in accordance with established procedures. An

Employee shall not... Misappropriate any evidence or

any other material or property found in connection

with an Investigation or other police action, except in

accordance with established Agency procedures.

(6) Violation of the Provision of the Agency’s Administrative Manual, Chapter 5, Section I, Sub-section

3-1. Every Employee shall conduct himself at all times,

both on and off duty, in a Manner which reflects Most

Favorably” on the Agency. The Phrase “reflects most favorably” pertains to the perceptions of both citizens

and Agency Employees. Conduct unbecoming an Employee shall include that which tends to bring the

Agency into disrepute, or reflects discredit upon the

Employee as representative of the Agency, or that

which tends to impair the operation or efficiency of the

Agency or Employee.

JURISDICTION

Comes now Petitioner, Charles A. Dread, Pro Se,

files this Appeal under Rules 18, 14, 17.3, and 33.2

of the Supreme Court of the United States, and the

Individual Federal and Local Rules of Appellate Procedures, which the “PETITION FOR WRIT OF

3

MANDAMUS PURSANT To 18 U.S.C. Section 3771

(d)(3) CRIME VICTIMS’ RIGHTS”, will be in Aid of

the Court’s Appellate Jurisdiction, in that Exceptional Circumstances warrants the Exercise of the

Court’s Discretionary Powers, and that Adequate Relief cannot be obtained in any other Form or from any

other Court.

The Administrative Trial Board Hearing in Maryland State Police v. Charles A. Dread IAU. Case No. U-

31-00037 dated April 25, 1991; David L. Moore (Attorney at Law) Files an Appeal in the Circuit Court for

Baltimore County Third Judicial Circuit for Maryland,

under Case No. 91CG2266 Docket 94 page 295 for Due

Process Violations. Attorney David L. Moore files a Motion to withdraw his Appearance as Counsel for Petitioner, in which, the Court ordered on the 21st day of

August 1991 after obtaining the Appeai from The Administrative Hearing (IAUCase No. U-31-00037) in the

Circuit Court for Baltimore County.

On July 14, 1994; Dismissal deferred for 30 days,

in which, the Petitioner files a request for Rehearing

on August 11, 1994. On August 19th; 1994, Petitioner

files a Petition for Rehearing with Memorandum. August 25, 1994, the Honorable L. R. Daniels Rules that

there was no Certificate per Rule 1-323 on paper #12.

Petitioner’s Certificate of Compliance per Rule 1-323

was filed on September 22nd, 1994, and on November

3rd, 1994; Order of Default denied.

On November 14, 1994, Petitioner Appeals to the

Court of Special Appeals, filing a Petition for Appeal

4

with Memorandum. On December 13, 1994; Order

from the Court of Special Appeals Directs that the

above Captioned Appeal (Case No. 91CG2266) proceed

without a Prehearing Conference filed (ree’d 12/12/94).

January 30th, 1995, notice from the Court of Appeals,

Denied Motion and Motion for Leave to Appeal in

Forma Pauperis.

The Brief of the Petitioner is to be filed with the

Office of the Clerk on or before March 14th, 1995. (Rule

8-502(a)(1)). On April 3rd, 1995, the Motion to Dismiss

filed by Counsel for Respondent. April 24th, 1995, Petitioner files his Opposition to Respondent’s Motion to

Dismiss. April 25th, 1995; Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss was Granted.

May 8th, 1995, Petitioner files a Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal. On May 31st, 1995, Petitioner’s Motion was denied. The Mandate from the

Court of Special Appeals was issued on June 8th, 1995.

On October 12th, 1995, the Petition Docket No. 264,

Sept. Term 1995; (No. 1991, Sept. Term 1994, Court of

Special Appeals), the Court of Appeals of Maryland denied Petitioner’s Petition and Supplements, as there

has been No Showing that Review by Certiorari is desirable and in Public Interest.

Upon Consideration of the Motion for Reconsideration, filed in the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the

Court Ordered, on the 15th day of December, 1995, that

the Motion be, and it is hereby, denied.

5

In the Supreme Court of the United States, the Petitioner filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in the

Case uf Charles A. Dread v. Maryland State Police

that was filed on January 11, 1996 and placed on the

Docket January 25th, 1996 as No. 95-7631. The Form

enclosed for notifying opposing Counsel, dated February 7th, 1996. The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is denied, as of March 4, 1996. The Petition for Rehearing is

denied, as of April 15, 1996.

Petitioner, Charles A. Dread, filed the Petition for

Judicial Review on the 15th day of May 1996, in the

Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Third Judicial Circuit for Maryland, in the Appeal from the Administrative Hearing Board pursuant to Maryland Rule 7-207;

after receiving notice to file. Respondent files Motion

to Dismiss the Petitioner’s Motion for Judicial Review

on June 19, 1996, in that, Petitioner files a Motion in

Opposition to Respondent’s Motion to strike Petitions

on the 25th day of June. The Court Denied Respondent’s Motion on the 22nd day of July, 1996.

Respecting Rehearing under the Law. See, (App.

Pgs. 5&6)

Petitioner files his Memorandum, as the Court requested, on the 2nd day of August, 1996. The Memorandum pursuant to Maryland Rule 7-207, list the

Exhibits in the Petitioner’s Memorandum, that are references to the Petitioner’s Record Extract (Separate

Volume) containing the Official Documents and Reports of the Maryland State Police Administrative

Trial Board Hearing.

6

In March 1997, The Petitioner receives Notice to

file a Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-501.1 and 2 of the Maryland Rules of Procedure by the Permission of the Circuit Court.

In April 1997, on the 10th day, Petitioner files the

Motion for Summary Judgment, & Request for Hearing under Case No. 03-C-96-004893 in the Circuit

Court for Baltimore County in a Timely Manner

pursuant to the Maryland Rules of Procedure, that Appeals a Final Decision and Order of the Superintendent of the Maryland State Police in the Agency

proceeding Maryland State Police v. Charles A.

Dread, IAU case No. U-31-00037 dated April 25th,

1991 See, (Summary Judgment/App., pg. 6)

The Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment

and Request for a Hearing has been Vacated on the 2nd

day of July, and the 4th and 5th day of August 1997,

that denies Petitioner’s Due Process Rights under the

Law Enforcement Officer’s Bill of Rights that

guarantees the Petitioner a Hearing from any Acts of

Discrimination under Article 27 Section 733 of the Annotated Code of Maryland, that the Merits of his

Claims are to be HEARD.

As the Circuit Court failed to follow the requirements of Maryland Rule 2311(f), its decision in denying (vacating) the Petitioner’s Motion without a

Hearing, was not Legally Correct. Bond v. Slavin, 157

Md. App. 340 (2004); By Denying or Vacating the Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Request

Cf

for Hearing lacks Due Process. The Trial Court’s Decision was not Legally Correct.

The Civil Statute of the Illinois General Assembly

Section 13-218, states “Revival of Judgment.” A Petition to Revive a Judgment, as provided by Section

21601 of this Code, may be filed No Later than 20 years

next after the Date of Entry of such Judgment. The

Provisions of this Amendatory Act of the 96th General

Assembly are Declarative of Existing Law. (Source:

P.A. 96-305, eff. 8-11-09.) See, (785 ILCS 5/13-218)

(from Ch. 110, par. 13-218)

In filing an Appeal on the 26th day of July, 2017 in

the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Third Judicial

Circuit for Maryland and the Court of Special Appeals

on the Same Day noted the sequence of dates for perfecting a Timely Appeal. Since the 20 year Statute applies to the Date of Entry of Judgment entered in the

Captioned Case of July 2nd and August 5th, 1997 substantially complies with the Above Statute.

In Order to Constitute a Judgment under Maryland Law, an Order must Settle the Rights of the Parties and Conclude the Cause of Action. The Two

required Acts for an Action of the Court to be deemed

the granting of a Judgment are the Issuance of a Final

Order and the Entry of the Order on the Docket.

There has not been a Trial on the Merits of Claims

presented in the Summary Judgment or a Final Order.

The 1997 Amendments to Maryland Rule 2601 have

changed the Analysis from whether Finality Exist to

whether an Order, which finally resolves all the issues,

8

has been set forth on a Separate document; Houghton

v. County Commissioners of Kent County’s, 504

A.2d 1145 (1986), the Focus on Finality is still relevant,

but it is not sufficient, without the Separate document,

to start the time for Filing an Appeal. Hiob v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co., 440 Md. 466, 103 A.3d 596,

2014 Md. LEXIS 779 (2014).

On July 26, 2017, The Petitioner files in the Circuit

Court for Baltimore County the Application for Leave

to Appeal from the Malicious Allegations of the Maryland State Police Administrative Trial Board Hearing

in Maryland State Police v. Charles A. Dread, [AU

Case No. U-31-00037 dated April 25, 1991; Pursuant to

Md. Rule 8-204, that applies for leave to Appeal from

the Judgment entered in the above Caption Case and

on the same day files the Application in the Court of

Special Appeals No. 01005, September Term, 2017.

On November 13th, 2017; the Maryland State Police, Respondent, files a Motion to Dismiss Appeal.

Upon Consideration of the Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal, and No opposition having been filed, it is

this 11th, day of December 2017, the Court of Special

Appeals, Ordered, that Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss

Appeal be, and is hereby, granted; and it is further Ordered, that the Appeal be, and is hereby, dismissed as

being untimely filed. Md. Rule 8-602(a)(3).

On January 24th, 2018, The Petitioner files for a

Writ of Certiorari in the Court of Appeals of Maryland,

September Term, 2017, Petition Docket No. 0473 pursuant to Md. Rule 8-303 and 8-602 affirming Section

9

1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code that Petitions the Court to Review the Lower Court Statutory

Interpretation made by an Administrative Agency of

the Maryland State Police.

The Entry of Judgement Not Directed under Rule

2-602 for being “untimely” in filing a claim for Intentional Racial Discrimination of Police Misconduct, detailing of the Willful Act of filing False Allegations

under the Pretext of Black Inferiority (Lack of Insight,

Permanent in Nature) which violates Section 1983 of

Title 42 United States Code which makes it unlawful

for anyone acting under the Authority of State Law to

Deprive Another Person of his or her Rights under the

Constitution or Federal Law.

On January 30th, 2018, the Maryland State Police,

Respondent, files an Answer to Petition for Writ of Certiorari. The Court of Appeals of Maryland, Petition

Docket No. 0473, September Term, 2017, (No. 1005,

Sept. Term 2017, Court of Special Appeals) and on

March 28rd, 2018, the Court of Appeals ORDERED,

that the Petition be, and it is hereby, denied as there

has been No Showing that Review by Certiorari is desirable and in Public Interest.

On April 20th, 2018, the Petitioner files a Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the United States District

Court for the District of Maryland, in Greenbelt, Maryland. On May 25th, 2018, Petitioner receives an Order

dated April 25th that Cautioned the Petitioner to file a

Supplement within twenty-one days and the Petitioner, also received on the same date a Memorandum

10

Opinion that the failure to timely supplement the Petition, providing the required information, may result

in dismissal of this Action without prejudice. In filing

his Supplement on June 7th, 2018, substantially complies with the Latest date of receiving the above two

(2) Notices on May 26, 2018.

On June 07, 2018, Petitioner files his Motion for

Reconsideration with the Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion and the Revised Version of the Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Civil Action No. PX-

18-1177, in the United States District Court for the

District of Maryland, in Greenbelt, Maryland. On the

13th day of June, 2018, by the United States District

Court for the District of Maryland, hereby ordered that

the Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 6) is DE-

NIED.

The Requirement that State Remedies be Exhausted before Relief is sought in the Federal Courts

is Grounded primarily upon the respect which Federal

Courts have for the State Judicial process, and upon

the Administrative necessities of the Federal Judiciary.

State Courts are duty bound to give full effect to Federal Constitutional Rights, and it cannot be assumed

that they will be derelict in their duty. Only after State

Remedies have been Exhausted without the Federal

Claim having been vindicated may Federal Courts

properly Intervene. But the reason for this Exhaustion

Principle cease after the Highest State Court has rendered a decision on the Merits of the Federal Constitutional Claim.

11

Petitioner, by filing his Petition for Judicial Review on June 25th, 2018, substantially complied with

the requirements of Rule B2c. The real purpose of Rule

B2 and B4 is to require that a party aggrieved by an

Administrative Decision to perfect his Appeal by no

more than forty (40) days from the date of the Final

Agency Decision. Rule B4a provides that the Order of

Appeal is filed within thirty (30) days of the Final Decision; and if No Petition accompanies the Order for

Appeal, then Rule B2e provides that the Petition be

filed within Ten (10) days of the Order. Consistent with

that timetable, the last possible date for perfecting Petitioner’s Appeal would have been July 17, 2018.

On December 14th, 2018, I filed in the Supreme

Court of the United States a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, in which, the Court Denied the Petition

for Financiai Reasons, as I was unabie to file in Forma

Pauperis. I had to file with Booklet Format; Authorized

by the Clerk of the Supreme Court.

On February 12th, 2019, I filed Certified to the

Supreme Court, the Petition for An Extraordinary Writ

of Habeas Corpus (Booklet Format). The Court Denied

the Petition on March 18th 2019.

On April 12th, 2019, I filed the Petition for Rehearing, (Booklet Format) under Article Ill of the Constitution, invoking the Courts ORIGINAL JURISDICTION,

of which, the Petitioner is entitled to a Judgement in

his favor, as a Matter of Law. The Petition for Rehearing (No. 18-7063) was denied on May 18th, 2019.

12

March 4, 2020, the Complaint in the United States

District Court for the Southern Division of the District

of MARYLAND, and November 24, 2020; the United

States District Court Denied Due Process of Complaint

and Due to File Play, Exhibit 10 has been altered, the

Second Page of the Order has been Accidentally Misplaced.

The Informal Brief was filed in the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on January 21st, 2021

describing the Acts of Discrimination.

The Disclosure Statement filed in the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on the First (1) Day of

March 2021. The Unpublished Per Curium Opinion

was Decided on July Ist, 2021. Petitioner’s Legal

Rights of Equal Protection has been Denied.

On July 18th, 2021. Petitioner files Petition for

Rehearing pursuant to Rule 4(a)(4)(B)(ii) and Rule

41(d)(1) with Memorandum requesting a STAY of the

MANDATE in accordance to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

of 1964 as Amended, on the Grounds that there is No

Genuine Dispute as to any Material FACT describing

a Pattern or Practice of Discrimination against a Class

of Individuals in a Petition for Rehearing.

On July 18th, 2021, Petitioner receives a Temporary Stay of Mandate in accordance with Rule 41(b),

and Order of the Lower Court on August 17, 2021

Denying Discretionary Review receiving the Official

Mandate on August 27, 2021 from the United States

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

13

October 18, 2021, receives ruling, after filing in the

U.S. Supreme Court, Denying Discretionary Review.

The United States Supreme Court ruled in this

Matter on the Eighteenth (18) Day of October, 2021, in

which, the Ruling gave the Petitioner Ninety (90) Days

to file Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in the State Supreme Court, in that, the Last Day for filing Appeal

would have been January 16, 2022.

The Petitioner files his Petition for a Writ of Certiorari by Mail to the U.S. District Court for the

Southern District of Maryland on the Fifteenth (15)

Day of January, 2022, delivered by the U.S. Postal

Service Certified to the US. District Court and Respondent. See, (E1187382175US), Court’s Copy and

(E1187383621US), Respondent’s Copy.

The Rebuttal from the Respondent would have

been due within Ninety (90) Days. Ninety (90) Days

would have been April 16th-20th, 2022, at the Earliest.

There was No Response File by the Respondent. The

Petitioner, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Maryland, his response, within the Ten

(10) Days Allowed, due to the Mishandling of the Mail

or No Response.

The Petitioner files Appeal in a Timely Manner,

filling a Second Appeal on the Twenty-Fifth (25) Day of

April, 2022, in that, Respondent failed to respond a

Second Time. On June 6, 2022, the U.S. District

Court for the District of Maryland provided

Twenty-Eight (28) Days to Show Cause Why His

14

Amended Complaint should not be Dismissed, as untimely.

On June 24, 2022, Petitioner Files the Summary

Judgment in the U.S. District Court for the Southern

District of Maryland. On July 18, 2022, the Order of

the Ruling from the U.S. District Court for the District

of Maryland received by the Petitioner on the Twenty-

Second (22) Day of July, 2022. The Ruling of the U.S.

District Court for Maryland prejudices Petitioner, in

that, the Ruling Dismissed Appeal, as Untimely.

On August 11, 2022, Petitioner files Notice of Appeal, In the Supreme Court of the United States from

the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of

Maryland, in a Timely Manner, under Rule 18.1 of the

Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States.

On August 18th, 2022, Petitioner received another

Informal Briefing Order, in which, Petitioner file one

earlier under 1:20-cv-00592 should suffice the Court.

Petitioner receives also, a Notice of Judgment on the

25th, Day of August in accordance with Rule 138 of the

Supreme Court of the United States. Petitioner was

unable to respond Due to Rule 18 of the Supreme Court

of the United States, that requires a Direct Appeal

from the State Supreme Court.

Petitioner Files in the U.S. Supreme Court under

Rule 18.3 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the

United States on October 6, 2022, in a Timely Manner.

See, (Tracking No. #EJ488319985US)

15

On October 15, 2022, Petitioner receives the Order

(Dated 10/11/2022) that dismisses the proceeding for

failure to prosecute pursuant to Local Rule 45, and on

the same day receives the Rule 45 Mandate, that constitutes the formal mandate of this Court issued pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate

Procedure. Moreover, Petitioner files Appeal in accordance with Local Rule 21(c) & (d) and Rule 45 of the

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, providing a Writ

of Mandamus for Crime Victim Rights pursuant to 18

US.C. Section 3771(d)(3) in the United States Court of

Appeals for the Fourth Circuit mailed Certified, Postage Prepaid, on the 7th Day of November, 2022, in a

Timely Manner with the United States Postal Service

Priority Mail Express. See, (Tracking No. El 036 674

551 US)

On February 23, 2023, The United States Court of

Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Denied Due Process

Rights of the Petitioner’s First and Fourteenth Amendment Rights of the United States Constitution.

In Francois v. Alberti Van & Storage Co., Inc.,

404 A.2d 1058, 1061, the Court of Appeals, quoting its

Decision in Town of Somerset v. Board, 245 Md. 52

(1966), stated that “[W]here there is Compliance with

the Substance of the requirements of Statutes or Rules

and the other parties have not been prejudiced, Technical Irregularities cannot be made the Basis for Depriving Persons of the Opportunity to Assert their

Legal Rights.”

16

Rule Bd provides for dismissal of an Appeal if the

Petition for Appeal is not Timely Filed “unless caused

to the contrary is shown.” In Francois, supra, the Court

stated that this Language indicates “some Elasticity is

allowed if “Cause” (meaning ‘Good Cause’) is shown.”

Id. at 1063. Therefore, the Term “Cause” is equated to

Good Cause. The Court stated:

[G]ood Cause must be Evidence by a Display

of Diligence to Prosecute the Case during the

Period of Alleged Inaction; and that, the Trial

Court’s Discretion will not be Set Aside on Appeal Except in Extreme Cases of Clear Abuse.

[CITATIONS OMITTED]. Id. at 1063-64.

Accordingly, where a Petitioner has demonstrated

diligence in prosecuting an Appeal, dismissal is unwarranted.

4

CONSTITUTION AND

STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

(1) First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Congress shall make No Law respecting an Establishment of Religion, or prohibiting the free Exercise

thereof, or Abridging the Freedom of Speech, or of the

Press; or the Right of the People Peaceably to Assemble

and to Petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances.

17

(2) 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution

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 are 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 the Laws.

(3) TITLE 42 USC Section 1983 — Civil Action for

Deprivation of Rights of Rights

Every Person who Under Color of any Statue, Ordinance, Regulation. Custom, or usage, of any State or

Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or

causes to be subjected, any Citizen of the United States

or other Person within the Jurisdiction thereof to the

Deprivation of any Rights, Privileges, or Immunities

secured by the Constitution and Laws, shall be Liable

to the Party injured in an Action at Law, Suit inequity,

are other proper proceeding for redress, except, that in

any Action brought against a Judicial Officer for an Act

or Omission taken in such Officer’s Judicial capacity,

injunctive relief shall not be Granted unless Declaratory Decree was violated or Declaratory Relief was unavailable.

18

(4) ANNOTATED CODE OF MARYLAND; Article 27 section 733

A Law Enforcement Officer may not be discharged,

disciplined, demoted or denied promotion, transfer, or

reassignment, or otherwise discriminated against in

regard to his Employment or be threaten with any

such treatment, by reason of his Exercise of or Demand

for the Rights Granted in this subtitle, or by reason of

the Lawful Exercise of his Constitutional Rights.

(5) ANNOTATED CODE OF MARYLAND, Public

Safety; Title 3

Law Enforcement Subtitle 1- Law Enforcement

Officer’s Bill of Rights, section 3-113. False Statement,

Report, or Complaint. Prohibited- A Person may not

knowingly make a False Statement, report, or complaint during an Investigation or Proceeding conducted under this subtitle.

@

vv

TEXT OF CITED STATUTES & RULES

(1) Annotated Code of Maryland, Article 27

section 733;

A Law Enforcement Officer may not be discharged, disciplined, demoted, or denied promotion,

transfer, or reassignment, or otherwise discriminated

against in regard to his Employment or be Threaten

with any such treatment, by reason of his Exercise of

or Demand for the rights granted in this subtitle, or by

19

reason of the Lawful Exercise his Constitutional

Rights.

(2) Annotated Code of Maryland, Public

Safety; Title 3

Law Enforcement Subtitle 1 — Law Enforcement

Officers’ Bill of Rights Section 3-113 — False statement,

report, or complaint. Prohibited — A person may not

knowingly make a false statement, report, or complaint during an investigation or proceeding conducted

under this subtitle.

(3) Maryland Rule 2-311(f)

A party desiring a hearing on a motion, other than

a motion filed pursuant to Rule 2-532, 2-533, or 2-534,

shall request a hearing in the motion or response under the heading “Request for Hearing.” Except when

the Rule expressly provides for a hearing, the court

shall determine each case whether a hearing will be

held, but the court may not render a decision that is

diapositive of a claim or defense without a hearing if

one was requested as provided in this section.

“Request for a Hearing” in accordance to

Maryland Rule 2-501.1 & 2.

(4) TITLE 42 USC Section 1983-Civil Action

for Deprivation of Rights

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or

20

Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or

causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States

or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and Laws, shall be liable to

the party injured in an action at Law, suit in equity, or

other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any

action brought against a judicial officer for an act or

omission taken in such officer’s Judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless declaratory

decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavaila-

ble.

¢

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

I was Wrongfully Discharged in May 1991, while

under the Appeal of an Administrative Agency of the

Maryland State Police filed on April 25, 1991. The Trial

Board Hearing violated Due Process Rights, as described in Title 3 Public Safety, Annotated Code of

Maryland. I filed the Appeal in the Circuit Court for

Baltimore County, Third Judicial Circuit for Maryland

under Docket 94 page 295, (Case No. 91CG2266) by Attorney David L. Moore on May 24, 1991. (Law Enforcement Subtitle 1 LEOBR’S Section3-113). See,

(Petition for a Writ. Pgs. 2-15).

On August 11, 2022; Petitioner files Notice of Appeal, in a Timely Manner, in the Supreme Court of the

United States from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Maryland, under Rule 18.1

21

of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States

of America.

Petitioner files in the Supreme Court of the United

States under Rule 18.3 of the Rules of the Supreme

Court of the United States on October 6, 2022 in a

Timely Manner, in Accordance with the Rule of Law.

Petitioner files in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Fourth Circuit in Accordance with Local Rule 21(a)

and (d) including Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure providing a Writ of Mandamus for

Crime Victim Rights pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section

3771(d)(3) in the United States Court of Appeals for

the Fourth (4th) Circuit. See, (Petition for Writ.)

It’s only after State Remedies have been Exhausted without the Federal Claim having been vindicated may Federal Courts properly Intervene. But the

Reason for this Exhaustion Principle cease after the

Highest State Court has rendered a Decision on the

Merits of the Federal Constitutional Claim.

Again, This Appeal involves the Defamation of

Character (Libel) in the Review of the Maryland State

Police Administrative Trial Board Hearing, that ignored Due Process Rights with Impunity, which details

the willful Act of Retaliating for Exercising his First

Amendment Rights, in that, Files False Allegations under the Pretext of Black Inferiority (Slander) violating

Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code,

which makes it unlawful for anyone Acting under the

Authority of State Law to deprive another Person of

[OCR skipped on page(s) 31-62]

[Read from a scan; the first 30 pages.]