In Re Amy Bishop Anderson

QUESTIONS/CLAIMS (PRESENTED IN REASONS TO GRANT WRIT)

1. ) Statement of the Case and exhaustion of claims pursuant to 28USC section 2254(b)(1)(A) as delineated in S.Ct. Rule 20.4(a). Where, in my petition (notarized and submitted into ADOC legal mail on 7/28/25, and stamped received by the Honorable Court on 8/6/25 ) I addressed my claim of new evidence of steroid psychosis (i.e. prescription steroid induced brain structure changes in regions dealing with rage/fight/flight) which if seen in my brain MRIs (already in possession of the State) would (with my medical history of longterm prescription steroid use) mitigate intent, which is an essential element of my crime. I discuss that I exhausted my claims in state court, and the fact that my habeas on new evidence was adjudicated as successive, eventhough my first habeas did not assert steroid psychosis per se, did not have this new evidence, and was adjudicated as procedurally defaulted and out of time, and thus could not get fair adjudication of my habeas corpus at the District Court level and thus have to approach Honorable Court. I will include this as a separate statement to follow, as per S.Ct. Rule 14, as requested by the Honorable Clerk Harris with his 8/7/25 letter, which I received in ADOC legal mail the night of 8/12/25.

2. ) Even post AEDPA U.S. Supreme Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as original matter as per 28USC section 2241(a), 2254(a) as delineated in Rule 20.4(a) (Felker v Turpin 518 US 651, 661-63, 135 LEd 2d 827, 116 S.Ct. 2333 (1996) [OPINION} II. a. ) Supreme Court has jurisdiction to entertain Writ of Habeas Corpus after petitioner has been denied Circuit Court permission to file a second or successive petition with the US District Court, as per In re Davis 565 F.3d 810 (llCirc.) [OPINION] II. b. ) Timeliness of submission to the Supreme Court the Petition of Writ of Habeas Corpus Amy Bishop Anderson front matter 2fin of lOfin