In Re Flenoid Greer

Where a State Prisoner is unconstitutionally detained and the State’s post-conviction rules foreclose relief, and no other adequate relief is available in any form or from any other court. The question presented is: ■ I. Does Petitioner’s unlawful restraint based upon an unconstitutional sentence qualify as an “exceptional circumstance” to warrant the exercise of the Supreme Court’s discretionary powers to grant habeas corpus relief? After Petitioner’s first habeas corpus proceeding, he discovered new facts which showed.he is in custody in violation of the Constitution. Petitioner’s new facts satisfied Supreme Court precedent and his petition required no authorization to overcome 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) requirements. The question presented is: II. Where the lower federal courts failed to uphold Supreme Court precedent in determining whether Petitioner was required to get authorization to file a “second” or “successive” application; should the Supreme Court transfer his case to the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(b) for a hearing and proper determination for habeas corpus relief? III. Did Congress foreclose a person from challenging a State sentence as unconstitutional under the “gateway screening” standards in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)?