Daniel Louis Jackson v. United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa

I. DID THE DISTRICT COUNT'S NOTICE TO SUMMARILY DENY ANY RULE 60(b) MOTION WITHOUT THE PERMISSION FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS AMOUNT TO NO ADEQUATE MEANS TO ATTAIN RELIEF? IF SO, DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING WRIT OF MANDAMUS? II. DID THE DISTRICT COURT MAKE A MISTAKE OF LAW BY APPLYING IOWA STATE LAW INSTEAD OF FEDERAL LAW TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF AN ARREST? IF SO, DID IT AFFECT THE FAIRNESS AND LEGALITY OF THE 2255 PROCEEDING UNDER RULE 60(b)(1)? III. WAS IT A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS FOR A NOTARY PUBLIC, RATHER THAN A JUDICIAL OFFICER, TO DETERMINE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR AN ARREST WARRANT, CONTRARY TO FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS? IF SO, DOES IT AMOUNT TO THE REOPENING OF AN HABEAS PROCEEDING? IV. DID THE DISTRICT COURT FAIL IN ITS OVERSIGHT DUTY BY NOT REVIEWING THE AFFIDAVIT SUPPORTINC THE WARRANT FOR ACCESSING FACEBOOK ACCOUNT, POTENTIALLY LEADING TO AN UNLAWFUL SEARCH AND SEIZURE? IF SO, DID IT AMOUNT TO A DE NOVO REVIEW BY REOPENING THE HABEAS PROCEEDING? V. DID THE DISTRICT COURT ERR BY NOT MAKING A DETERMINATION ON THE MERITS OF ONE OF THE CLAIMS PRESENTED IN THE 2255 MOTION, THUS DENYING A FULL AND FAIR REVIEW? IF SO, DOES IT MEET THE RULE 60(b) REQUIREMENTS TO REOPEN HABEAS PROCEEDING? VI. DID THE DISTRICT COURT MISINTERPRET JACKSON'S RuLe 60(b)(1) MOTION AS A SECOND AND SUCCESSIVE 2255, CONTRADICTING THE PRECEDENT SET IN KEMP V. UNITED STATES, REGARDING JUDICIAL MISTAKES OF LAW? IF SO, DID THE COURT OF APPEALS ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING WRIT OF MANDAMUS?