Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Daniel Aiello, Petitioner v. Brian Collier, et al.

-7387

No.

--•4

IN THE

Supreme Court, U.S.

FILED

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FEB 1 3 2023

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

— PETITIONER

(Your Name)

vs.

Cj^tVv^r

— RESPONDENT(S)

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

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

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(Your Name)

(Address)

^sg>5,Vvo^jeaft/0;~TV

(City, State, Zip Code)

Ak.

(Phone Number)

*

«

4

»

ft

TABLE of CONTENTS

QUESTION PRESENTED

Pg-ll

PARTIES

Pg.fl

TABLE of AUTHORITIES

pg.iii

DECISIONS BELOW

Pg-i

pg.JI & 2

JURISDICTION

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

STATEMENT of the CASE................

BASIS for FEDERAL JURISDICTION

Pg- 2 £^l&)

pg.^. & # & _5

Pg* 5

ARGUMENT in SUPPORT OF GRANTING CERTIORARI

A. CONFLICTS with DECISIONS of OTHER COURTS.. .pg._5 &

B.IMPORTANCE of the QUESTION PRESENTED

CONCLUSION

pg-i

Pg-Z

APPENDIX

A-l

DECISION of the SUPREME COURT of TEXAS

A-2

LETTER from the SUPREME COURT of TEXAS CLOSING THE CASE..A-3

COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

REHEARING EN BANC FILED......................................................

B-l

REHEARING EN BANC DENIED....................................................

B-2

MOTION for REHEARING FILED................................................

B 3

MOTION for REHEARING DENIED..............................................

B-4

MANDATE LETTER from the THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

B-5

(pg.ii)

TABLE OF AUTHORIES.

(1)AIELLO v. COLLIER 2022 Tex. Lex. 940

pg-i

(2)AIELLO v.COLLIER 2022 Tex.-App.Lexis 2771 / 2022 WL 1250850...pg.1_

(3)AIELLO v. SOLIS Tex7App.Lex.2773/2023 WL 1259849

Pg-I

(4)Ann Phan v. CL Invs. LLC 2022 Tx.-App.Lex.346

(lst.Dist. Hou.-App.2022)

Pg-5

(5)Board of Pardons v. Allen 482 U.S. 369........................................

Pg3

(6)Crain v. Prasifa 97 SW.3d.860,870,(Tex.App.-Corpus christiEdinburg 2003)................

Pg • 4

(7)Fordley v. Lizarraga 18F4th.344(2021U.S.App.Lex.33395

9th.Cir.2021)..................

Pg-4

(8)Lexcon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Letach

Pg-3

523 U.S.26,35,118 S.Ct. 956,140 L.Ed.2d.62 (1998)........

Pg-5

(9)Mossler v. Shields 818 SW.2d 752,754(Tex.1991)........................

(10)Pitts v.Tex.Dept.of Crim.Justice 2002 Tx.App.Lex.8461

(13th.Dist.2002)..

Pg-5.

Pg-4

(11)Richardson v. Joslin 501 F3d.415,419 (5th.Cir.2007)............

(12)Ritchey v. Vasquez 986 SW2d.611,612 (TX.1999).................. .

Pg-5

(13)Sefiane v. Comm'n of the SSa 2021 US.DIST.Lex.243571/

2021 WL5989758 (South.Dist.of Tx. Nov.2,2021)........

Pg-5

(14)United States v. Monsanto 491 US 600,607, 109 S.Ct.2657

105 L.Ed.2d 512 (1989)........................

Pg-3

(15)Varner v. Shepard 11 4th. 1252 (11th.Cir.2021)......................

Pg-4

(16)Young v. Lumkin 2021 US.Dist.Lex.150786/2021 WL3556204....

Pg • 5

TEXAS STATE LAWS

(1)Tx. Gov't.Code Ann. 311.016-Definitions....................

(2)Tx.Gov't.Code Ann. 501.099 SECTION-(B)......................

(3)TX.Gov't.Code Ann. 501.099 SECTION-(A)......................

(4)Tx.Civ.Prac.$Rem.Code Chapter 14-Inmate litigation

(5)Tx. Constitution Article 1 Section 28........................

FEDERAL LAWS

(1)United States Constitution Fourteenth Amendment...

(2)Prison litigation Reform Act 42 U.S.C.1997(e)........

(3)$upreme Court Rule of Court Rule 10

(4)Title 42 Section 1983..........

(5)28 U.S.CiS 1257......................

(Pg.iii)

pg-i

pg_l & 4_

Pg-4

Pg-1

pg-i

pg ._1&2&5_

pg_l&4Pg-5

Pg-1

Pg-3

a*<A

C-k\o^\g)^X^

1

- ■

A^Q^vA\<A^QQTnsAs

.

-

o£ Oc>\x\v^ c^sA O^xdaSsS v^x\N\g CL Qf>e

cA~\exCsS> - C.<x^

9^'OS°C\ -XaXnSSs^^A

ONrA. c^s K\s>\<& vj . Cja'vSv^Ss XO'3Sv '\^ .VRX SiAfc ,

S<5i^ N^sj^AX*.

av^'XA. ^AAsA

5^vK^toci.tx CA-oi^

<XW>sA

AAW^h^vAvv

<lv\^a

93-- sej^ K^^vcAx C.A'3)

<sR K^es\s» .,

^\=>\^'A c£VA*xc^

Kv*A& M. vavA^ ao3^*A<^x

v^vb a^faosa xovvasosso

Cr^^.A^.C^^tAS> C^cAvAv, K^AV2l% 9vC>9ia.

S^£- »*

^Ars^&A vs\c^ vv^c&a

dsxvxv-^yc-^ ^s^ejaXs^

K^*f^A\x^A^

V?\c^3>Y£K&<X

3a,a^aa Cy^V^x.

^OS-a^

^-2^

%A\^c>5U5\c^ q_vAssx*A-^S<A^S ta^3^i ~A,^^\A\x (j&-<^

^CCrA^ \**AfeSX V^^sA ^QJiSi5JrA^ VS vaOSA ." A^evAX

(?)

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The Texas State Courts adjudificationof the claim resulted in a

decision that is contrary to,involved an unreasonable applicationof,

clearly established Federal Law, and was based on an unreasonable

dertemination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the

state court proceedings.

To demonstrate that at the state court level adjudication of Petitioners

claim was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.Petitioner

rebuts the state courts findings with factual findings with clear and

convincing facts, TEXAS STATE LAWS.

The reviewing court should take into consideration the natureeof the

challenged action, involving a significant departure from the mandatory

language construction and legislative directive.The Texas Laws provided

require a course of action and places a substantive limit on Respondents

discretion.

28 U.S.C.S 1257 (a) Final judgements rendered by the Highest Courts

of a state in which a decision could be had,may

be reviewed by the Supreme Court by "writ of

certiorari" where the vaidity of a statute of

any state is drawn in question on the grounds

of it being repugnant to the constitution or

laws of the United States or (WHERE ANT RIGHT

COJJMISSK.H

PRIVILEGE IS SPECIALLY SET UP OR CLAIMED UNDER

THE CONSTITUTION OR STATUTES OF,OR ANY

COMMISSION HELD OR AUTHORITY EXERCISED UNDER

THE UNITED STATES."

The Supreme Court has determined that statutes use of mandatory

language "SPECIFICALLY THE WORD SHALL CREATES A PRESUMPTION.

Board of Pardons v. Allen 482 US 369.Recognizing that by using "SHALL"

Congress could not have chosen stronger words to express its intent to

impose a mandatory requirement, United States v. Monsanto 491 US 600,607

109 S.Ct.2657, 105 L.Ed.2d 512(1989) and recognizing that "SHALL"

normally creates an obligation impervious to judicial discretion,

Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Letach 523 US 26,35

118 S.Ct.956, 140 L.Ed.2d 62 (1998).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

(con't)

Petitioner contends he is being deprived a "liberty interest" created

in Texas Government Code Ann. 501.099 (B^) that contains mandatory

language the "WORDSSHALL" that places a substantive limit on the

Respondents Official discretion. Richardson v. Joslin 501 F3d.415,419

(5th.Cir.2007)

TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE ANN.501.099 SECTION (B)quotes-The department

when determining in which correctional facility

to house an offender "SHALL" consider the best

interest of the offenders family and,if possible

house the offender in, or in proximity to, the

county in which the offenders family resides.

The Mandatory Language in the abovementioned statute creates a

presumption the Petitioner will be housed in proximity to his family^

Respondents deprivation of this statute created liberty interest

creates a direct conflict and reckless disregard to another Texas state

law.TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE ANN. 501.099 SECTION (A)quoting that

The department "SHALL" adopt and implement policies

that encourage family unity while the offender is

confined.In adopting the policies,the dept. "SHALL"

consider the impact of dept.visitation policies on

the ability of the offenders child to maintain

ongoing contact with the offender.

Petitioner seeked relief is mandated in the abovementioned laws and

no more.

PLRA EXHAUSTION

Respondents raised the defense,Petitioner did not exhaust administr­

ative remedies required by PLRA 42 USC 1997(e).

Petitioner contends when the statement "NO FURTHER ACTION IS WARRANTED

BY THIS OFFICE':' that definitive statement thereby ended all available

administrative remedies.An exceptionnto the exhaustion requirement is

baked into 1997(e) (a)'s text.An inmate need only exhaust only such

administrative remedies as are available. Varner v. Shepard 11 F.4th.

1252(llth.Cir.2021) and Fordley v. Lizarraga 18 ,:F4th. 344( 2021 US App.

Lexis 33395 (9th.Cir.2021)

At the Texas State level in Crain v. Prasifka 97 SWSd 860,870 (TexAPPfCorpus Christi-Edinburg 2003)The court held that the dismissal of an

PLRA EXHAUSTION

(con't)

inmates suit under Tx.Civ.Prac.& Rem.Code Chapter 14.005-Inmate Litigation

for the failure to exhaust administrative remedies should have been

"WITHOUT PREJUDICE" because a dismissal for failure to comply with the

conditions in chpt 14.005 is not a dismissal on the merits,but rather

an exercise of the trial courts discretion. Aiello v. Solis 2022 Tex App

Lexis 2773, 2023WL 1250849 and Ritchey v. Vasquez 986 SW2d 611,612 (texl999)

Dismissal with prejudice constitutes an adjudication on the merits

and operates as if the case had been fully tried and decided. Mossier v.

Shields 818 SW2d 752,754(Texl991) and Pitts v. Tex. Dept, of Crim. Justice

2002 Tex-App Lexis 8461 (l3th.Dist.2002)

Thereby by the lower courts judgement should be modified.A DISMISSAL

OF ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE,FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST THE ADMINISTRATIVE

REMEDIES IS REQUIRED.. Sefiane v. Comm'r of the SSA 2021 US Dist.Lexis

243571/ 2021 WL 5989758 (Southern Dist. of Texas Nov.2,2021) and Young v.

Lumkin 2021 US Dist.Lexis 150786/ 2021 WL 3556204 and see

Ann Phan v.

Cl Invs.LLC 2022 Tx-App Lexis 346 (1st.Dist.Hou-App 2022)

BASIS FOR FEDERAL JURISDICTION

This case raises a question of interpretation of the Due Process Clause

of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Rule 10 Considerations Governing Review on Certiorari

(c) A state courtrhas decided an important

question of federal law that has not been,

but should be,settled by this court that

conflicts with relevant decisions of this

court.

ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF GRANTING

CERTIORARI

A.CONFLICTS with Decisions of Other Courts

The holding of the courts below that mandatory language "SHALL" does

not create a protected liberty interest and the failure to exhaust

administrative remedies should be with prejudice is directly contrary

to the holdings of their own state court cases and the federal courts.

SEE ABOVEMENTIONED CASE LAWS...The Supreme Court in copious of adjudication

in cases before them ruled contrary to the lower courts decisions.

1

ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF GRANTING

CERTIORARI

Theclaw of Texas State at Tex.Gov't Code 311.016 inacted by Acts

1997,75th Leg.,ch.220 (S.B.) 1 effective May 23,1997

Sec.311.016 "MAY","SHALL"."MUST",Etc. states,

The following constructions apply unless the context

in which the word or phrase appears necessarily

requires a different con struction or unless a different

construction is expressly provided by statute.

(2)"SHALL" imposes a duty.

Texas Constitution Article 1,Sec.28.Suspension of Laws, states

No power of suspending laws in this State Shall

be exercised except by the Legislature

The courts of texas do not have authority to set aside state and

constitutional mandates.Because the dimissal was defective and on the

bsais of judicial discretion and not the merit the case should be remanded

or the judgement modified to a "DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE".

B.IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION PRESENTED

This case presents a fundamental question of law.The question presented

is of great public importance because it affects visitation which the

Texas Department of Criminal Justice encourages and visitation is an

important factor in rehabilitation.

Visitation is an integral part of the process of rehabilitation.The

Bureau of Prisons encourages visitation by family,friends and community

groups to maintain the morale of the inmates and to develope closer

relationships betwwen the inmate and family members.The guidance on

the question is of great importantance to Texas State Judiciary.

The issues importance is enhanced by the fact that the lower courts

in this case have seriously misinterpreted the law.

A State Court can not,by omitting to pass upon evidence,or to make

findings of fact,that deprive a litigant of the benefit of a federal

right.

The Court should correct the judicial error and make it clear that

the word "SHALL" is mandatory duty to be performed by officials and

or modify the lower courts judgement to a "DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE".

1

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reason,certiorari should be granted in this case.

X\\c^l.cJk

co(Ute*3ce-4

/L^ 2023

Respectfully Submitted,

'f~Hrbd/ie/i

28 U.S.C 1746 unsworn declaration

=

I Declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true

and correct.

EXECUTED ON THIS THE

C-O'k.^Le.tkt-cX Cji+K

DAY OF Fe.brcfcrt^,

aQ

^XXCv'CicJrv.

. :V

_2023.