Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Orin Kristich, Petitioner v. United States District Court for the District of New Mexico

FILED

APR 0 3 2624

OFFK r ot t

SUPt-.-.A.........

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

In re: Orin Kristich

— PETITIONER

(Your Name)

vs.

William P.Johnson (Chief District Judge)

Warden Gutierrez(U.S.P.T.)

— RESPONDENT(S)

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

Tenth Circuit Court Of Appeals

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

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Orin Kristich

(Your Name)

P.O.Box 7007 Marianna

F.L. 32447

(Address)

Marianna, F.L. 32447

(City, State, Zip Code)

N/A

(Phone Number)

-4-

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

(1) Whether The First Amendment applies to legal mail?

(2) Whether The First Amendment applies to Mr.Kristich, and access

to the court's by U.S. mail?

(3) Whether The First Amendment applies to Mr.Kristich's Fifth

Amendment Due Process rights with regards to §2255?

(4) Whether these rights are clear and indisputable with regards

to the United States Constitution?

(5) Whether prison officials can violate these rights?

(G) Whether The Fifth Amendment applies to legal mail, with regards

to accessing the court's?

(7) Whether the 10th Circuit Court-of:Appeals has abused its

discretion in this case?

-5-

LIST OF PARTIES

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

[X] AM 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:

William P.Johnson (Chief District Judge)

Warden Gutierrez (U.S.P.T.)

Sarah J. Mase, AUSA

RELATED CASES

•Case No. 23-2122, 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, Writ of Mandamus

•Case No. 1:22-CV-00569-WF-KRS, District Court

New Mexico, 28 U.S.C. § 2255

District of

•Case No. 1:18-CR-02635-WJ-KRS-1, District Court, District

of New Mexico, Criminal Case

-6-

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:

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

the petition and is

fX] reported at Unknown

; or,

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

[ 53 is unpublished.

The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendix

the petition and is

[ ] reported at

; or,

[ ] 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.

-8-

A

to

to

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINIONS BELOW

1

JURISDICTION

9

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

11

STATEMENT OF THE CASE...........................................................

12

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

14

CONCLUSION

15

INDEX TO APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Exhibit(s)

A-l --

APPENDIX B

Exhibit(s)

1-3

D

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX F

-7-

JURISDICTION

[X] For cases from federal courts:

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

was December 7,2023______

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

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

Appeals on the following date: January 24.2024

, 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).

[ ] 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_______

[ ] 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).

S'-

CASES

PAGE

Ex parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727 (1877)

Ex Rel. Milwaukee S.D. Pub. Co.v. Burleson, 255 U.S. 407

(1921)

Harriman v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 211 U.S. 407

(1908)

Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989)

Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78 (1987)

U.S. v. Delaware, 213 U.S. 366 (1909)

Kensu v. Haigh, 87 F.3d 172 (6th Cir. 1996)

Sallier v. Brooks, 343 F.3d 868 (6th Cir. 2003)

Knop v. Johnson

997 F.2d 996 (6th Cir. 1992)

STATUTES AND RULES

28 C.F.R.§540.2(c)

28 C.F.R.§540.18(a)

Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 8(e)

-10-

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

First Amendment Of The United^States Constitution.

Fifth Amendment Of The United States Constitution .

28 C.F.R.§540.2(c)

28 C.F.R.§540.18(a)

-11-

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

(1)

Mr. Kristich filed a Writ of Mandamus with regards to the

United States District Court (D.N.M.) not marking his legal

mail "open only in the presence of the inmate."

The Tenth

Circuit Court of Appeals issued the Writ, however, denied the

Writ.

(Quoting In re:

Orin Kristich) "Mr. Kristich now asks

us to direct the district court to label future envelopes as

legal mail as he requested.

But he fails to identify authority

requiring the district court to label his mail in any specific

way.

In short, Mr. Kristich has not shown that his right to

relief on this point is clear^and indisputable."

However,

the First Amendment was the authority found in Mr. Kristich's

Writ.

Wherefore, the Tenth Circuit's order created a Circuit

split with regards to the First Amendment and legal mail.

On January 24, 2024, Mr. Kristich's construed document for

panel rehearing was denied.

Further, the Tenth Circuit said,

"Mr. Kristich's petition for rehearing does not cite any such

authority either."

(Please see-Mr. Kristich's petition where

he clearly cited case law with regards to legal mail, and the

Sixth Circuit's court approved opt-in system in which prison

officials could open any mail sent to a prisoner unless the

prisoner affirmatively requested that-1 "privileged mail" be

marked by the courts,

The Tenth Circuit clearly did not read

the petition or they would have known Mr. Kristich did make

that request (please see Knop v. Johnson, 997 F.2d 996, 1012

(6th Cir. 1992).

hearing.

As seen in Mr. Kristich's petition for panel

In short, Mr. Kristich's right is clear and unquestionably

-12-

p

indisputable from:thd very first request to mark his mail as

legal mail.

(Please see (D.N.M.) Civil Docket for case no.

1:22-cv-00569-WJ-KRS, Docket text(s) no>

3, 9, 39)(quoting

Sallier v. Brooks, 343) "heightened concern with allowing prison

official unfettered discretion to open and read an inmate's

mail because a prison's security needs do not automatically

trump a prisoner's First Amendment right to receive mail...."

(2)

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals "departed so drastically"

from the principles and history of the United. States Consti­

tution as to constitute an abuse of discretion.

Please see

Sineneng-Smith, 590 U.S., 140 S. Ct. 1575,. 206 L. Ed. 2d

866 (2020); Prude v. Meli, 76 F.4th 648 (Aug.7,72023).

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706 the 10th Circuit Court of

Appeals abused its discretion.

-13-

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

(1) The Tenth Circuit Court Of Appeals created a Circuit split with .

regards to the First Amendment, and legal mail in this case.

(2) Pursuant to this courts "Plain Error" doctrine an error has occured

in this case.

(3) The error has affected Mr.Kristich's substantial rights Pursuant

to The United States Constitution.

(4) The error has seriously affected the fairness, integrity, and public

reputation of these judicial proceedings.

(5) The rights of the American people as a whole is at risk; with

regards to The First Amendment.

-14-

CONCLUSION

As a general matter the First Amendment means that our government

has no power to restrict Mr.Kristich's right to redress grievances

before the court(s) of the United States•regarding his legal mail.

The First Amendment Of The United States Constitution has a long

History in American Law, starting with the early settlement of the

Colonies in 1641. The Tenth Circuit has now tried to diminish the

"Historical Values", and "Principles" of the United States Constitution

, and American society. Wherefore, this petition for a Writ Of

Certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

Orin Kristich

Name^

Signature

Date

-15-