Eddie Scott v. United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

I. The question presented is whether a Judge can keep a case closed even after the plaintiff overcame the Younger Doctrine by being acquitted after a state trial on 8/1/2024, and now that the state proceedings have ended? Although Federal Rule 60(8) states a judgment can be discharged, void, released, or no longer equitable, or any other reason that justifies relief. Will being acquitted at a jury trial meet the relief for one of those options under Federal Rule 60(B)? And is it lawful for federal judges to use the Federal Anti-Injunction Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2283, which provides that a federal court may not enjoin state court proceedings "except as expressly authorized by an Act of Congress when use of 28 U.S.C. 2241 and Section 1983 is petitioned. Are 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which expands Habeas Corpus to state citizens who are under state authority (Habeas Corpus 2241). and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, both expressly authorizing Acts of Congress? Did the District Court in Ocala, Florida, "misinterpret’' the Federal Anti-Injunction Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2283, by not allowing the petitioner to file a Section 1983 pursuant to this courtestablished precedent Mitchum V. Foster. 407 U.S 225(1972)? And did the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals err in" judicial proceedings" by not following Mandate Rule 41 pursuant to this court-established precedent, Mullane V. Central Hanover Bank 6 Trust Co.. 339 U.S. 306 (1950).