Shahram Shakouri v. Scott Becker, former Judge, 219th Judicial District Court of Texas, Collin County, et al.

Question Number One: The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied Petitioner's motion for extension of time to pay the required filing fee to appeal the dismissal of his § 1983 cause of action. To the extent that this Court in Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 76 (1985) held: "The Fourtheenth Amendments due process guarantee of fundamental fairness derives from the belief that justice cannot be equal where, simply as a result of his poverty, a defendant is denied the opportunity to participate meaningfully in a judicial proceeding in which his liberty is at stake." And considering that Petitioner asked the federal court for a prospective relief in form of a recommendation for a properly con­ ducted review of his conviction by the state in the future, and in view of the fact that the state courts in their discretion might have decided to shorten his prison term, or release him from confinement, * The question presented is: (1) Whether the Fifth Circuit erred in denying the motion of this poverty-stricken Petitioner for extension of time to pay the filing fee, denied him the opportunity to partici­ pate meaningfully in a judicial proceeding where his feder­ al rights and his liberty was at stake? Question Number Two: Considering the unanimous opinion among some circuits that the phrase "inextricably intertwined" is frequently criticized. For in­ stance, Andrade, 9 F.4th 1206, 1211 (11th Cir. 2021)("placing the phrase at the root of many mistaken Rooker-Feldman-dismissal."); and