Mitchell Crocker v. CenterPoint Energy

Whether the Fifth Circuit violated the Due Process and Equal Protection principles articulated in Swenson v. Bosler, Griffin v. Illinois, and Mayer v. Chicago by affirming summary judgment while Petitioner—an indigent, pro se litigant—was denied access to the transcript and record necessary for meaningful appellate review.

Whether a federal judgment may stand when it was procured through admitted false sworn statements, including a fabricated termination date and an impossible lawsuit filing date, in violation of Rule 11(b)(3), Rule 56(c)(4), and the Due Process Clause.

Whether the district court erred by refusing to consider a final Texas Workforce Commission Appeal Tribunal decision finding no misconduct—evidence that Fifth Circuit precedent requires courts to treat as probative of pretext under McInnis v. Alamo Community College District.

Whether fraud on the court under Rule 60(d)(3) requires relief where the record contains perjury, fabricated dates, hearsay, double hearsay, and declarations lacking personal knowledge, contrary to this Court’s decisions in Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co. and Rozier v. Ford Motor Co.. Jurisdictional basis: This petition invokes this Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) because the Fifth Circuit’s March 25, 2026 judgment (Appendix A-l) affirms a federal-question dismissal that raises recurring constitutional and procedural issues of national importance.