Demetric Simon v. Officer Keith Gladstone, et al.

The District Court’s grant of a Motion to Dismiss under Statute of Limitations is supposed to be for “rare circumstances.” This case examines the open question of law in this Court, subject to a Circuit Split, of when inquiry notice begins and/or Petitioner’s claims are otherwise equitably tolled or fraudulently concealed when: (1) Respondent Officers Gladstone, Vignola, and Hankard, conspired and concealed not only their direct involvement, but existence, planting evidence to frame Petitioner and found guilty between 2019 through 2022, and (2) a reasonable fact-finder would conclude the criminal indictment unsealed in 2019 began Petitioner’s inquiry notice. Lacking definite analysis from this Court, the case was simply and wrongly dismissed before discovery began for not being filed by 2017, for the initial incident in 2014. The Questions Presented are:

1. In a now proven criminal conspiracy framing Petitioner but likely undiscoverable before Federal indictment on Conspiracy to Deprive Civil Rights, should a plausibly plead and argued “Equitable Tolling,” “Equitable Estoppel,” and/or “Fraudulent Concealment” apply to Petitioner’s Federal Civil Rights case on matching facts to the Motion to Dismiss based on Statute of Limitation defense?

2. Whether Federal Courts should allow “High Low” Agreements on Appeal, especially when kept secret and undisclosed, the subject of a Circuit Split, which characteristics are more in nature of “collusive” from this Court’s classical cases of Lord v. Veazie, 49 U.S. 251 (1850) and Am. Wood Paper Co. v. Heft, 131 U.S. 92 (1869).