Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Richard T. Ringold, Petitioner v. Delvin Peoples, Warden

ORIGINA

25’-7077

No. ____________________

Supreme Court,

FILED

FEB 2 7 2026

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

— PETITIONER

(Your Name)

vs.

— RESPONDENTS)

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

iTx SupfWW QmA oP

_____

(NAME OF cd’URT THAT LAST RULED ON MERITS'OF YOUR CASE)

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

flicks T.

(Your Name}

P.O. Mli

(Address)

(6ity; State, 4lp Code)

(Phone Number)

Sd 3106?_____

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the United States Supreme Court:

1. How can the Supreme Court of Georgia issue a ruling that conflicts with the Federal Prisoner Mailbox

Rule codified in Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 4(c) and articulated in Houston v. Lack?

2. Does such a state court decision violate the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution?

3. What remedy, if any, is available to enforce Federal uniformity in the application of the Prisoner

Mailbox Rule?

LIST OF PARTIES

■ [{4 AH parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.

[ ] AH parties da 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:

RELATED CASES

A

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINIONS BELOW

.

JURISDICTION

1

.................................. -

......

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

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

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

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

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

CONCLUSION

................................................ -

INDEX TO APPENDICES

Mer- W

appendix a

(W op

appendix B Jo.u^ry 2,2.014 Oder- Denying /AohwG^ReconsUerahon

appendix c 'iMuflry 10,1625

Motion Qr bfension aP Time, -to file. 215

appendixD Apri(g, 1015 0rd«--C5wwy HloiS’')GianUafensibn to

file. dPC.

J

appendix e ^1, 1015 Application Por oi C9C

appendix f

QeoeMxr (if, 1015 Mofici

P^corstAeration

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

CASES,

HoiWm \L LCLoK.

McLSSiliae, v. NiIIi/lms,

rtodond v.

Fond keogia,.

STATUTES ANO RULES

D.C.G.A.S VMCaW

OXXAA SH-W)

Klde 2.7C1)

OTHER

PAGE NUMBER

il.S.fct lib

lift

a±55i

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

[ ] For cases from federal courts:

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

the petition and is

to

[ ] reported at------------------------------------------------------------ : 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

the petition and is

[ ] reported at; or,

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

[ ] is unpublished.

For cases from state co arts:

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

Appendix Q__ to the petition and is

[ ] reported at; or,

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

[v4 is unpublished.

The opinion of the

appears at A ppendix

court

to the petition and is

[ ] reported at; or,

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

[ ] is unpublished.

1.

to

JURISDICTION

[ ] Fbr cases from federal courts:

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

was __----------------------------- [ ] 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).

For cases from state courts:

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

A copy of that derision appears at Appendix —-----

Deo, 4, Mfr

A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied on the Mowing date:

j and a copy of the order denying rehearing

appears at Appendix —10----.

CT/m, 2; 2O2£>

[ ] An extention 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).

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Amendment XIV - Section /. - 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 or 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 law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection

of the laws.

O.C.G.A. §5-6-34(a) - Appeals may be taken to the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals

from the following judgments and rulings of the Superior Courts, State-wide Business Court, the

Constitutional City Courts, and such other courts or tribunals from which appeals are authorized

by the constitution and laws of this state.

O.C.G.A. § 9-14-52(a) - Appeals in Habeas Corpus cases brought under this article shall be

governed by Chapter 6 of this Title 5 except that as to final orders of the court which are adverse

to the petitioner, no appeal shall be allowed unless the Supreme Court of this state issues a

Certificate of Probable Cause for the appeal; (b) If an unsuccessful petitioner desires to appeal,

he must file a written application for a Certificate of Probable Cause to appeal with the clerk of

the Supreme Court within 30 days from the entry of the order denying him relief. The petitioner

shall also file within the same period a Notice of Appeal with the clerk of the concerned Superior

Court. The Supreme Court shall either grant or deny the application within a reasonable time

after filing. In order for the Supreme Court to consider fully the request for a certificate, the

clerk of the concerned Superior Court shall forward, as in any other case, the record and

transcript, if designated, to the clerk of the Supreme Court when Notice of Appeal is filed. The

clerk of the concerned Superior Court need not prepare and retain and the court reporter need

not file a copy of the original record and a copy of the original transcript of proceedings. The

clerk of the Supreme Court shall return the original record and transcript to the clerk of the

concerned Superior Court upon completion of the appeal if the certificate is granted. If the

Supreme Court denies the application for a Certificate of Probable Cause, the clerk of the

Supreme Court shall return the original record and transcript and shall notify the clerk of the

concerned Superior Court and the parties to the proceedings below to the determination that

probable cause does not exist for appeal.

Rules Supreme Court of Georgia; Rule 27(2) - Motions for Reconsideration

(2) Time for Filing - A Motion for Reconsideration may be filed regarding any matter in which

the Court has ruled, and must be received by the Court via the Clerk's Office or electronically

filed within ten days from the date of ruling. A copy of the ruling to be reconsidered shall be

attached. No second or subsequent Motion for Reconsideration by the same party after a first

motion has been denied shall be filed except by permission of the Court. No response to a

Motion for Reconsideration is required, but any party wishing to respond must do so

expeditiously. See also Rule 61 regarding motions to stay the remittitur and Rule 13, regarding

filing deadline.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The timeline of this case demonstrates a series of procedural anomalies and delays - attributable to the

state - that rendered Petitioner's compliance with the court's deadline a practical impossibility.

•

February 24, 2024: Petitioner filed a state Habeas Corpus petition.

•

December 16, 2024: The Habeas Court dismissed the petition as successive.

•

January 20, 2025: Petitioner timely filed a Notice of Appeal and a Motion for Extension of Time

for filing the CPC, requesting the extension to obtain necessary transcripts. See Appendix C.

•

January 27, 2025: Petitioner was transferred from his current prison to another prison facility,

disrupting his access to legal materials and the regular flow of mail.

•

Post-Transfer: Petitioner diligently notified both the Habeas Court and the Supreme Court of

Georgia of his transfer and new address.

•

February 24, 2025: The Supreme Court of Georgia sent a response acknowledging petitioner's

notice of transfer and updated its records accordingly.

•

April 8, 2025: Petitioner finally received the order from the Supreme Court of Georgia granting

his Motion for Extension of Time. See Appendix D. Critically, this order dated weeks earlier,

extended the deadline for filing the CPC to February 28, 2025 - a date that had already passed

39 days prior to the Petitioner's receipt of the order. On the same day, Petitioner received the

habeas hearing transcripts he needed to prepare his CPC.

•

May 7, 2025: Having finally received the necessary documents and the court's order, Petitioner

filed his CPC. He attached a detailed affidavit of the timeliness with supporting exhibits,

explaining the timeline and invoking the Prisoner Mailbox Rule as established in Massaline v.

Williams. See Appendix E.

•

December 9, 2025: The Supreme Court of Georgia, without explanation or any apparent

consideration of petitioner's affidavit, issued an order summarily dismissing the CPC as

untimely. See Appendix A.

•

December 14, 2025: Petitioner, having received the dismissal order on December 12,2025,

timely filed a Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Georgia Supreme Court Rules 13(3) and

27. See Appendix F.

•

January 2, 2026: The Supreme Court of Georgia issued an order stating that the remittitur has

been issued on December 24, 2025, returning jurisdiction to the lower court. This action was

taken despite the pending, timely-filed Motion for Reconsideration, effectively ignoring the

motion and finalizing a constitutionally infirm judgment. See Appendix B.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

I. The Georgia Supreme Court's decision conflicts with this court's precedent in Houston v. Lack.

This court has long recognized that pro se prisoners operate under unique disadvantages that

justify a departure from the strict filing rules applicable to other litigants. The Prisoner Mailbox Rule,

established in Houston v. Lack, is a cornerstone of this understanding. It provides that a pro se

prisoner's Notice of Appeal is "filed at the time petitioner delivered it to the prison authorities for

forwarding to the court clerk." 487 U.S. 276. The rationale is clear: once the prisoner relinquishes

control of the document to the prison system, he has done all he can do. The State of Georgia explicitly

adopted this Federal rule for state habeas appeals in Massaline v. Williams, holding that a pro se

prisoner's CPC "will be deemed filed on the date he delivers [it] to the prison authorities for

forwarding." 274 Ga. 552.

The Georgia Supreme Court's decision is in direct conflict with this binding precedent.

Petitioner did exactly what Houston and Massaline required: he submitted his CPC with a sworn

affidavit and exhibits documenting the timeline of its submission to prison authorities. The court's

summary dismissal, without any engagement with this evidence, constitutes an unreasonable

application of clearly established Federal law. State courts are not free to ignore constitutional

procedural rules that this court has deemed essential for ensuring access to justice, especially when

those rules govern the gateway to Federal habeas review. By refusing to apply the mailbox rule, the

Georgia Supreme Court erected an arbitrary procedural bar that this Court's jurisprudence expressly

forbids.

II. The State Court's actions created an unj'ust obstacle to appellate review in violation of due process.

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a meaningful opportunity to

be heard. The circumstances of this case reveal a sequence of state actions that rendered Petitioner's

opportunity for appeal illusory. The Georgia Supreme Court granted Petitioner an extension of time to

file his CPC, but he was not notified of the new deadline - February 28, 2025 - until he received the

order on April 8, 2025. It is a logical and constitutional impossibility to require a litigant to meet a

deadline he could not have known about until 39 days after it had passed. This failure of notice was

compounded by Petitioner's prison transfer on January 27, 2025, an event entirely outside his control.

Petitioner acted with diligence by promptly notifying the court of his new location. The court

acknowledged this transfer on February 24, 2025, yet still failed to ensure its order would reach him in a

timely manner. The combination of the prison transfer and the court's inexplicable delay in transmitting

its order created an insurmountable procedural hurdle. To punish Petitioner for this series of state-

created impediments is fundamentally unfair and violates the core tenets of due process.

III. This case presents an important Federal question regarding access to Federal Habeas review.

This case is not merely about a procedural misstep in a state court; it implicates the integrity

and availability of Federal Habeas Corpus review for state prisoners. A state CPC is a jurisdictional

prerequisite for a petitioner to exhaust state remedies before seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. §2254.

When a state court applies its procedural rules in a manner so arbitrary and unreasonable that it

effectively closes the courthouse doors, it erects an "unreasonable impediment to the diligent pursuit of

constitutional claims." Holland v Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 654 (2010). This court should grant certiorari to

clarify that state appellant courts cannot enforce filing deadlines in a way that is constitutionally

unsupportable, particularly when their decisions have the direct effect of precluding Federal review.

The question of whether the circumstances here - a prison transfer coupled with a court's failure to

provide notice of a deadline until after its expiration - constitute an adequate and independent state

ground for procedural default is a Federal question of significant importance. Allowing the Georgia

Supreme Court's decision to stand would invite other states to apply procedural rules in a way that

undermines the Great Writ.

IV. The state court compounded its error by issuing the remittitur while a timely Motion for

Reconsideration was pending.

Finally, the Georgia Supreme Court's handling of the post-judgment motions highlights its

disrespect for its own procedural rules. Petitioner timely filed a Motion for Reconsideration on

December 14, 2025, within the 10-day period prescribed by Georgia Supreme Court Rule 27. Such a

motion is intended to allow the court to correct manifest errors of law or fact. Instead of considering

the motion, the court allowed the remittitur to issue on December 24, 2025, prematurely finalizing an

erroneous judgment and divesting itself of jurisdiction. This procedural irregularity denied petitioner a

final opportunity for the state court to correct its clear error and further demonstrates that the dismissal

of his appeal was not the result of a "firmly established and regularly followed state practice." Ford v.

Georgia, 498 U.S. 411, 423-24 (1991).

CONCLUSION

This decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia represents a manifest error that is contrary to

this court's precedent, fundamental due process, and the principles of equity that undergird the

prisoner mailbox rule. The court created an impossible situation for petitioner and then punished him

for failing to overcome it. For the foregoing reasons.

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.