Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Willie M. Walker, Petitioner v. Columbus Division of Police, et al.

No. 25-3625

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

WILLIE M. WALKER,

Petitioner,

v.

COLUMBUS DIVISION OF POLICE,

FRANKLIN COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE,

FRANKLIN COUNTY CORONER’S OFFICE, CITY

OF COLUMBUS, ROBBY WARNICK, ROBERT

WACHALEC, TERRY MCCONNELL, MICHELLE

HENRY, AND JANET A. GRUBB, et. al,

Respondents. .

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the *

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

WILLIE M. WALKER

2012 Hegemon Crest Drive

Columbus, OH 43219

walker22w@aol.com

Petitioner, pro se

I

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether a state actor's deliberate cover-up of a

murder violates the victim’s family’s rights under

the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment, notwithstanding the general rule

that there is no constitutional right to the

prosecution of another,

2. Whether the accrual of a § 1983 claim alleging a

police cover-up of murder begins only upon the

discovery of concealed evidence,, where ongoing

misconduct spans years and new revelations in

2024 triggered awareness of the full injury.

ii

LIST OF PARTIES

Petitioner: Willie M. Walker

Respondents: Columbus Division of Police;

Franklin County Prosecutor’s Office; Franklin County

Coroner’s Office; City of Columbus; Robby Warnick;

Robert Wachalec; Terry McConnell; Michelle Henry;

Janet A. Grubb; Detective Gary Cooper; Detective

Raymond

Guman;

Sergeant

Strayer;

Retired

Lieutenant Smith; Sergeant Roy Lisath; Commander

Michael Gray; Chief Deputy Becker; Chief Kirn

Jacobs; Chief Quinlan; Interim Chief Michael Woods;

Commander Dinner; Deputy Chief of Staff for Mayor

Ginther Office, Kate Pishotti; Public Safety Director

iii

Robert Clark; Assistant Chief Lashanna Potts;

Assistant Chief Bodker; Deputy Chief Weir; Chief of

Police Elaine Bryant; Mayor Andrew Ginther.

RELATED CASES

1.

Walker v. Columbus Division of Police, et

al., No. 2:25-cv-00162 (S.D. Ohio). Judgment entered

June 24, 2025.

2.

Walker v. Columbus Division of Police, et

al., No. 25-3625 (6th Cir.). Order entered February 24,

2026; petition for rehearing denied March 10, 2026.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTIONS PRESENTED........................ ii

LIST OF PARTIES...................

iii

RELATED CASES...................................... ...v

TABLE OF CONTENTS............................... vi

TABLE OF APPENDICES........................... ix

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

OPINIONS BELOW.....................

xviii

1

JURISDICTION............................................. 1

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY

PROVISIONS INVOLVED..................2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE....................... 3

I. Factual Background..................... 14

vi

II. Procedural History..........................16

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT.... 19

I. The Decision Below Conflicts with

This Court's Precedents and

Creates a Split on Whether a

Deliberate Police Cover-Up of

Murder Violates Due Process....... 20

II. The Lower Courts Misapplied

Accrual and Tolling Doctrines,

Warranting Review to Clarify

When Claims Arise in Concealed

Misconduct Cases........................... 23

III. Additional Errors Warrant

vii

Review, Including Immunity and

Amendment Denial....................... 25

CONCLUSION & PRAYER FOR RELIEF.. 26

viii

TABLE OF APPENDICES

Order of the Sixth Circuit

APPENDIX A:

Court of Appeals entered on Feb. 24,

2026. .

......................la

APPENDIX B:

Order of the Sixth Circuit

Court of Appeals Denial of Rehearing

entered on Mar. 10, 2026

APPENDIX C:

. 10a

District Court Opinion

(June 24, 2025)

APPENDIX D:

Complaint

12a

filed

on

February 18, 2025, in Willie Walker v.

Columbus Division of Police, et al,

Case

No.

Southern

2:25-CV-0162

District

of

at

the

Ohio

......................................... 31a

APPENDIX E:

City Defendant’s motion to

dismiss complaint, filed on March 26,

2025, in Willie Walker v. Columbus

Division of Police, etal, Case No. 2:25CV-0162 at the Southern District of

Ohio

116a

APPENDIX F:

County

Franklin

Defendants’

motion

to

dismiss

complaint, filed on March 26, 2025 in

Willie Walker v. Columbus Division of

Police, et al, Case No. 2:25-CV-0162 at

the

Southern

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

x

District

of

Ohio

164a

APPENDIX G:

Plaintiffs

opposition

to

defendants’ motion to dismiss, filed on

March 28, 2025, in Willie Walker v.

Columbus Division of Police, et al,

Case

No.

Southern

District

...

APPENDIX H:

2:25-CV-0162

at

of

the

Ohio

193a

City Defendants’ motion to

extend time to reply in support of

motion to dismiss filed on March 31,

2025 in Willie Walker v. Columbus

Division of Police, et al, Case No. 2:25CV-0162 at the Southern District of

Ohio.......... .

APPENDIX I:

188a

Order granting Defendants’

Xi

Motion for Extension of Time to Reply

in Support of Motion to Dismiss

entered on April 1, 2025 in Willie

Walker v. Columbus Division of Police,

et al, Case No. 2:25-CV-0162 at the

District

Southern

of

Ohio

...................... 191a

Plaintiffs

APPENDIX J:

Opposition

to

Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, filed

on April 9, 2025 in Willie Walker v.

Columbus Division of Police, et al,

Case

2:25-CV-0162

No.

Southern

District

.

APPENDIX K:

at

of

the

Ohio

193a

Order granting Plaintiffs

xii

motion to dismiss Defendant, Dr- Kent

Harshbarger, filed on April 10, 2025 in

Willie Walker v. Columbus Division of

Police, et al, Case No. 2:25-CV-0162 at

the

Southern

District

Ohio

of

199a

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

APPENDIX L:

Plaintiffs

motion

for

summary judgment filed on April 18,

2025, in Willie Walker v. Columbus

Division of Police, et al, Case No. 2:25CV-0162 at the Southern District of

Ohio

202a

APPENDIX M:

City Defendants’ reply in

support

of

motion

to

dismiss

complaint, filed on April 21, 2025, in

xiii

Willie Walker v. Columbus Division of

Police, et al, Case No. 2:25-CV-0162 at

the

Southern

.........

APPENDIX N:

District

of

Ohio

............................. 252a

Franklin

County

Defendant’s response in support of

motion to dismiss, filed on April 23,

2025, in Willie Walker v. Columbus

Division of Police, et al, Case No. 2:25CV-0162 at the Southern District of

Ohio....... .................................... 268a

APPENDIX O:

Plaintiffs amended motion

to correct a mistake, filed on April 29,

2025 in Willie Walker v. Columbus

Division of Police, et al, Case No. 2:25-

xiv

CV-0162 at the Southern District of

Ohio

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

283a

Plaintiffs motion for leave

APPENDIX P:

to file surreply in opposition to

defendants' responses in support of

motion to dismiss complaint, filed on

May 5, 2025, in Willie Walker v.

Columbus Division of Police, et al,

Case

No.

2:25-CV-0162

District

Southern

of

at

the

Ohio

..... 284a

APPENDIX Q:

Plaintiffs Notice of Appeal,

filed on August 8, 2025, in Willie

Walker v. Columbus Division of Police,

et al, Case No. 2:25-CV-0162 at the

xv

District

Southern

Ohio

of

................................................ 294a

APPENDIX R:

Plaintiffs

designation of

record, filed on August 8, 2025, in

Willie Walker v. Columbus Division of

Police, et al, Case No. 2:25-CV-0162 at

the

Southern

of

District

Ohio

........ 296a

Plaintiff’s Certificate that

APPENDIX S:

no transcript will be ordered, filed on

August 8, 2025, in Willie Walker v.

Columbus Division of Police, et al,

Case

No.

2:25-CV-0162

Southern

District

.

xvi

of

297a

at

the

Ohio

APPENDIX T:

Plaintiffs

statement

of

issues, filed on August 8, 2025, in

Willie Walker v. Columbus Division of

Police, et al, Case No. 2:25-CV-0162 at

the

Southern

District

of

Ohio

. ......... ......................... 299a

APPENDIX U:

Constitution and statutory

provisions involved .. .. 301a

U.S. Const, amend. XIV, § 1..... 301a

28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) ............

301a

42 U.S.C. § 1983 ...........

302a

Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.09........... 302a

APPENDIX V:

Exhibits ...........

xvii

305a

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)

17

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)

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

17

Costanich v. Dep't. of Soc, & Health Servs., 627 F.3d

1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2010)

21

DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs.,

489 U.S. 189, 195 (1989)

.......................... 17

Garrett v. Ohio State Univ., 2021 WL 3490007 (S.D.

Ohio 2021)

24

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Fed. R.

Civ. P. 15(a)(2) .............................

xviii

26

Hester v. Chester County, 162 F.4th 780, 784 (6th

Cir. 2025)

.................................................. 17

Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976).........25

Johnson v. Memphis Light Gas & Water Div., 777

F.3d 838, 843 (6th Cir. 2015)....................

23

Laborers’ Loc. 265 Pension Fund v. iShares Tr., 769

F.3d 399, 403 (6th Cir. 2014).................................. 17

Livers v. Schenk, 700 F.3d 340 (8th Cir. 2012).... . 22

Manetta v. Macomb Cty. Enft Team, 141 F.3d 270,

274 (6th Cir. 1998)..............................

25

Mora-Contreras v. Peters, 851 F. App'x. 73, 73 (9th

Cir. 2021).................................................................. 21

Reguli v. Russ, 109 F.4th 874, 883 (6th Cir. 2024) . 24

xix

Sevier v. Turner, 742 F.2d 262, 273 (6th Cir. 1984) 23

Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748, 768

(2005).............................

17

U.S. Nat’l Bank of Or. v. Indep. Ins. Agents of Am.,

Inc., 508 U.S. 439, 447 (1993)

18

Winslow v. Smith, 696 F.3d 716, 732 (8th Cir. 2012)

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

.22

Statutes

28 U.S.C. § 1254(1)

........................... 2

42 U.S.C. § 1983

........................2

Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.09 .

............................... 24

Rules

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)

16

XX

Constitutional Provisions

U.S. Const, amend. XIV, § 1...............

xxi

2

OPINIONS BELOW

The opinion of the United States Court of

Appeals for the Sixth Circuit entered on February 24,

2026 is unpublished and reproduced at Appendix A.

The court’s denial of the petition for rehearing is

reproduced at Appendix B. The opinion of the United

States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio

is unpublished and reproduced at Appendix C.

JURISDICTION

The

Sixth

Circuit entered judgment on

February 24, 2026, and denied rehearing on March 10,

2026. This petition is filed within 90 days of the denial

of rehearing. This Court has jurisdiction under 28

1

U.S.C. § 1254(1).

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY

PROVISIONS INVOLVED

U.S. Const, amend. XIV, § 1: "No State shall. .

. 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." ’

42 U.S.C. § 1983: "Every person who, under

color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or

usage, of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be

subjected, any citizen of the United States ... 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..."

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This case arises from the brutal murder of

Petitioner's son, VonMason S. Walker, on October 16,

2015, and the subsequent cover-up by Respondents,

including the Columbus Division of Police’ (CPD),

which intentionally misclassified the homicide as an

"accidental shooting" to conceal the crime and deny

justice to Petitioner and his family.

Far from a mere "bad investigation," as

dismissed by the lower courts, this was a deliberate,

egregious pattern of deceit and evidence tampering

documented in court filings and forensic reports. The

Supreme Court must understand upfront that

Petitioner has uncovered seven unequivocal pieces of

forensic evidence demonstrating CPD's intentional

cover-up:

1.

CPD

manipulated

blood

forensic

evidence on the handgun at the crime scene by wiping

off

authentic

blood

droppings

and

adding

manufactured blood spatter to make it appear

VonMason shot himself. Forensic analysis, including

the Wilgus Forensics report, confirms the blood

4

patterns are inconsistent with suicide and indicate

staging.

2.

CPD

lied

about

VonMason's

body

position, claiming he fell backward once with legs

stretched out, arms extended, and fingers crossed over

his body as seen in crime scene photos. However, the

body’s positioning and blood flow patterns show he

was moved post-shooting, contradicting CPD's suicide

narrative.

3.

CPD falsely claimed the only forensic

evidence of VonMason's hand on the gun was "high-

velocity blowback" on his right hand. Forensic review

reveals it was not blowback but blood dripping

5

downward from the head wound, inconsistent with

self-inflicted injury.

4.

CPD

Detective

Warnick

deceitfully

discarded critical forensic evidence from the crime

scene, including adhesive lifts and the gunshot

residue

(GSR)

kit,

preventing

independent

verification and concealing evidence of foul play.

5.

CPD Detective Wachalec intentionally

destroyed VonMason's cellphone, which contained an

incriminating threatening text message from a key

suspect present in the kitchen on the night of the

murder.

6

6.

In a deceitful act, Detective Warnick

interviewed a witness who stated VonMason entered

the kitchen, a gunshot went off, and "they shot that

man.” Warnick then filed a fraudulent report claiming

the witness "didn't know what happened," directly

covering up the homicide.

7.

CPD lied about the gun's imprint wound

matching VonMason holding the firearm. Detective

Warnick claimed it matched a right-handed grip, but

the wound's clockwise angle is incompatible with a

self-inflicted shot by a right-handed person; it would

be counterclockwise if self-inflicted.

7

8.

CPD falsely claimed to Petitioner that

the bullet slug was lost and they could not find it. On

July 9, 2017, Petitioner located and recovered the

bullet slug from the house next door to the crime scene

and documented the discovery in a video recording

(photograph included at the bottom of Docket 16).

When Petitioner turned the slug over to CPD, they

asserted

that the

slug did not match 9mm

ammunition. This strongly indicates that VonMason

was shot with a different handgun, the real murder

weapon, which was removed from the house. This

explains why the gun imprint mark does not match

the firearm collected by CPD and why there is a

8

second bullet hole in the bathroom wall off the

kitchen.

9.

What caused VonMason’s hands to

separate: CPD took a blanket from the ” family room”

that was on the floor, and placed it inside the playpen,

so the (Dog) can lay on it, that caused VonMason’s

hands to, "separate and pushed his hat further under

the playpen. CPD Det. Wachalec said to Petitioner,

that he cannot" control," what other Officers does at

a crime scene.

10.

CPD Det. Wachalec refused to recognize

the Muzzle blast injuries to VonMason’s hand and no

9

blood on his fingertips. Analyzed by Athena Research

& Consulting.

11.

CPD Det.Warnick and Det. Wachalec

Intentionally ignore the six-points blood spatter and

droppings at the VonMason crime scene:

i.

The blood droppings in front of the fridge

on the kitchen floor.

ii.

A small bloodstream on front fridge

bottom panel.

iii.

Multiple blood stream on side of fridge to

VonMason’s left side of his body.

10

iv.

Blood spatter and droppings behind

VonMason’s head on the wall and

baseboard.

v.

Blood stains pattern in a downward

motion

the

on

playpen

right

VonMason’s

side.

mesh

to

Falling

backwards was a lie.

vi.

The bipod dropping stains inside the

playpen mattress on top.

vii.

The Crime Scene photograph 380a -

388a, 392a, 394a, 398a, 400a, 401a and

412a.

Blood

back

spatter

forensic

evidence backfires spatter Stains on the

11

CPD detective glove, between the thumb

and the point finger, who's holding the

handgun at the Crime Scene. Planting,

self-manufactured false blood evidence

onto the back end of the handgun.

12.

CPD Det. Wachalec said to Petitioner,

when VonMason went backwards, his hands had

nowhere to go. Also, in that tight area that caused

VonMason’s T- Shirt to raise up, middle part of his

chest in a tilted manner.

13.

CPD lied to Petitioner about what

Demetrius Billups did, to wit, ravishing through

VonMason’s pockets, and VonMason is missing his

12

money, his CCW license and his Commercial driver

license.

14.

CPD Det. Wachalec lied to Petitioner,

wanting him to contact the Polygraph examiner to let

him know that Det. Wachalec was going to contact

him about the results and he never did. When

Petitioner called Det. Wachalec, he said, he wanted to

Polygraph the guys himself. It never happened.

15.

CPD lied to Petitioner at the crime scene

stating that VonMason was dancing in a kitchen with

a gun in his hand and that he accidentally slipped or

tripped over a toy truck and shot himself in the head.

(Appendix, p. 379a, 386a, 388a, 408a).

13

16.

The one thing that kept Petitioner in

pursuit for justice is that CPD knows VonMason was

murdered and CPD know the conspiracy perpetrators

are lying about what transpired in that house, to

VonMason. (Appendix, p. 57a, 62a-79a).

These acts form a habitual pattern of lies and

deceit by CPD, ignoring evidence and doing nothing

throughout the case, as Petitioner diligently pursued

justice for over a decade.

I. Factual Background

On October 16, 2015, first responders found

VonMason dead from a gunshot wound at 321

Johnson Street, Columbus, Ohio. CPD homicide

14

detectives initially ruled it a suicide, echoed by the

Franklin County Coroner. Convinced of murder,

Petitioner hired private investigators who, in 2016*

2017, uncovered evidence that three men murdered

VonMason over a debt and staged the scene. Reports

detailed witness accounts, including threats, and were

provided to CPD along with VonMason’s cellphone

containing a suspect's threatening text.

The

coroner

amended

the

death

to

"undetermined" and later "homicide" based on this

evidence. Yet CPD reclassified it as "accidental,"

deleted the cellphone text, mistreated witnesses, and

refused to prosecute. Petitioner continued uncovering

15

misconduct: in March 2024, CPD Chief Elaine Bryant

denied an emergency meeting, confirming ongoing

denial; in July 2024, Coroner Dr. Nathaniel Overmire

revealed VonMason's body was washed pre-autopsy,

altering evidence; in December 2024, a BCI report

showed blood inside a playpen mattress, further

evidencing foul play and cover-up.

II. Procedural History

In February 2025, Petitioner filed a pro se 42 U.

S. C. § 1983 complaint in the Southern District of

Ohio, alleging violations of due process, equal

protection,

and

freedom

from

unreasonable

searches/seizures due to the cover-up, plus state

16

claims for wrongful death, emotional distress, and

negligence.

The district court dismissed under Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12(b)(6), holding certain defendants non-sui juris,

prosecutorial immunity for Janet Grubb, untimeliness

under statutes of limitations (accrual in 2016), and no

constitutional claim because there is no right to

prosecution of others. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.

662, 678 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

544, 570 (2007); Laborers’ Loc. 265 Pension Fund v.

iShares Tr., 769 F.3d 399, 403 (6th Cir. 2014); Hester

v. Chester County, 162 F.4th 780, 784 (6th Cir. 2025).

Leave to amend was denied as futile.

17

On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal

of federal claims with prejudice, citing Town of Castle

Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748, 768 (2005), and

DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489

U.S. 189, 195 (1989), for no protected interest in

prosecution. It vacated dismissal of state claims with

prejudice, remanding for dismissal without prejudice.

See U.S. Nat’l Bank of Or. v. Indep. Ins. Agents of Am.,

Inc., 508 U.S. 439, 447 (1993). Petitioner's rehearing

petition, arguing 2024 accrual, discovery rule,

fraudulent

concealment,

continuing

violations,

qualified immunity for Grubb, and leave to amend,

was denied.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

This Court should grant certiorari because the

case presents important federal questions on the

scope of due process protections against stateorchestrated cover-ups of murder and the application

of accrual/tolling doctrines in 42 U. S. C. § 1983 claims

involving concealed misconduct. The Sixth Circuit’s

decision conflicts with circuit precedents recognizing

exceptions to the no-right-to-prosecution rule in cases

of egregious state interference and misapplies accrual

rules, warranting review to ensure uniform protection

of constitutional rights.

19

I. The Decision Below Conflicts with This

Court’s Precedents and Creates a Split on

Whether a Deliberate Police Cover-Up of

Murder Violates Due Process.

The Sixth Circuit held Petitioner stated no

constitutional claim because there is no protected

interest in prosecuting another, relying on Gonzales

and DeShaney. But those cases involved failures to act

or enforce, not active cover-ups with evidence

tampering. Here, CPD's deliberate manipulation,

wiping blood, destroying evidence, falsifying reports,

and reclassifying homicide as accidental, denied

Petitioner meaningful access to justice, and violated

20

due process by creating a state-imposed barrier to

remedies.

Some circuits recognize due process violations

where state actors actively conceal or fabricate

evidence in criminal investigations, even absent a

right to prosecution. Courts in the Ninth Circuit have

held that the use of deliberately fabricated evidence

can give rise to a substantive due process claim. See

Costanich v. Dep't. of Soc. & Health Servs., 627 F.3d

1101,1111 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that the deliberate

fabrication of evidence for use in a court proceeding

gives rise to a substantive due process claim)); see also

Mora-Contreras v. Peters, 851 F. App’x. 73, 73 (9th Cir.

21

2021) (holding that prison inmates “allege[d] facts

that could support a fabrication of evidence claim”).

Additionally, the Eighth Circuit has found that

the fabrication of evidence may be "conscience­

shocking” so as to rise to the level of a Fourteenth

Amendment violation. See Winslow v. Smith, 696 F.3d

716, 732 (8th Cir. 2012) (recognizing a claim that

officers "manufactured false evidence" as falling

under the Fourteenth Amendment); Livers v. Schenk,

700 F.3d 340 (8th Cir. 2012).

Granting certiorari would resolve whether

active cover-ups, as detailed in the seven forensic

22

points above, create a substantive due process claim,

protecting families from state-sanctioned injustice.

Moreover, the cover-up denied equal protection

by treating VonMason's case differently due to

arbitrary or discriminatory motives, raising an

important

question

on

class-of-one

claims

in

investigations.

IL The Lower Courts Misapplied Accrual and

Tolling Doctrines, Warranting Review to

Clarify When Claims Arise in Concealed

Misconduct Cases.

The courts held claims accrued in 2016, but

overlooked 2024 discoveries (Bryant's refusal, body

23

washing revelation, BCI blood evidence) as the point

Petitioner "knew or had reason to know" of the injury.

Johnson v. Memphis Light Gas & Water Div., 777 F.3d

838, 843 (6th Cir. 2015); Sevier v. Turner, 742 F.2d

262, 273 (6th Cir. 1984). This conflicts with federal

discovery rules and Ohio’s fraudulent concealment

statute (via 42 U.S.C. § 1988), tolling until discovery

despite diligence. Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.09.

Equitable tolling applies due to extraordinary

circumstances:

evidence

Petitioner's

diligence

(providing

multiple times) faced powerful

state

concealment. The continuing violation doctrine also

resets the clock with serial acts from 2015-2024.

24

Reguli v. Russ, 109 F.4th 874, 883 (6th Cir. 2024);

Garrett v. Ohio State Univ., 2021 WL 3490007 (S.D.

Ohio 2021).

Certiorari is needed to clarify these doctrines

nationally, preventing premature dismissals in cover­

up cases.

III.

Additional Errors Warrant Review,

Including

Immunity

and Amendment

Denial.

Janet Grubb’s

actions were investigative

(evaluating concealed evidence out-of-court), entitling

her to qualified, not absolute, immunity. Imbler v.

Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976); Manetta v.

25

Macomb Cty. Enf’t Team, 141 F.3d 270, 274 (6th Cir.

.1998).

Denying

amendment

to name proper entities

*

;

'*>

was abuse, as pro se pleadings merit liberal

construction and amendment is freely granted.

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Fed. R.

Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

This case's profound injustice, a family's quest

against a documented cover-up, presents compelling

reasons for review.

CONCLUSION & PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be

granted.

Dated: August

5/4 2026

Respectfully submitted,

WILLIE M. WALKER

2012 Hegemon Crest Drive'

Columbus, OH 43219

walker22w@aol.com

Petitioner, pro se

27