Jamal A. Azeez v. West Virginia

and Constitutional Provisions

1. Did the lower court condone systemic injustice against Petitioner (“Azeez”), a colored citizen, knowing that he was falsely arrested and indicted twice1 by the same officer that used blatant and willful perjuries because he believed Azeez was “illegal in the country”?

2. Whether Azeez claim of actual innocence, as proven, was ignored by the lower court, as espoused in the precedence set in McQuiggins v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2013), in which this Court held with abundance of clarity that “actual innocence, if proven, is sufficient to circumvent the one-year2 statute of limitations for petitioners to appeal their conviction enacted within the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA)”. The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg (RIP) held: “Actual innocence, if proved, serves as a gateway through which a petitioner may pass whether the impediment is a procedural bar, such res judicata, collateral estoppel, as it was in Schlup v. Delo. 513 U. S. 298, and House v. Bell. 547 U. S. 518, or expiration of the AEDPA statute of limitations, as in this case. Pp. 7—14”. The Court has applied this “fundamental miscarriage of justice exception” to overcome various procedural defaults, including, res judicata, collateral estoppel, and as most relevant here, failure to observe state procedural rules, such as filing deadlines. 1 One conviction (for Failure to Appear) was reversed by a federal district court recently, but the Respondent refused to compensate Azeez for Unjust Incarceration in a pro se Civil Rights suit. 2 Majority of the evidences (concealed through gross Prosecutorial and Police Misconduct) were discovered in between 5 to 13 years after conviction and expiration of the one-year statute of limitation under AEDPA.