James E. Frantz v. Andre Stancil, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections, et al.

Did the District Court error by failing to recognizing substantive claims as cognizable under habeas corpus and failing to exercise its equitable au­ thority to bypass the limitations of 28 USCS § 2244(d)? Then in turn not determin­ ing the merits of the constitutional violations inherent in the petitioner's substantive innocence claim?

Did the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit error by denying the petitioner's application for a certificate of appealability by failing to recognized the District Court's error as presented above?

As it is not controversial that substantive actual innocence claims are cognizable under habeas corpus jurisprudence (Hill v United States, Davis v United States, Jones v Hendrix^, does the habeas court have a primary duty to re­ solve this issue of substantive actual innocence prior to any consideration of re­ strictions created in the Anti-terrorist and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA)? Because a substantive claim of actual innocence is binary in nature, either true or false, does the court have an primary initial obligation to resolve the merits of the claim? 1 Hill, 368 US 424, Davis, 417 US 333, Jones, 599 US 455