Mark Hanna v. John Bel Edwards, former Governor of Louisiana, et al.

Question 1. In The Contest. Of a 1983 Complaint. Filed On Behalf Of a. State Prisoner, Regarding The Issues That. Are Set. Out In a. Rule 24, Federal Rule Of Appellate Procedure [FedR.App.P.] Motion For Leave To Proceed Informa. Pauperis On Appeal [Rule 24 IFPA Motion], From The District Court Having Certified That The Appeal Is Not Taken In Good Faith, If Appeal Court Review On The Merits Of The Appeal Has Been Dispensed With On Appeal Court’s Finding Of Waived Issues On Appeal By a Purported Briefing Error, Does Appropriate Due Process Of Law Follow From Those Developments To Finding That. The Appeal Is “Frivolous In Part” On Its Merits, Or Would a Judgment Entered In Thrt Posture [After The Demise Of a. Rule 24 IFPA Motion] Fonn a. Void Nullity And Is The Judgment. Entered In The Present Case An Example Of One? Question 2, Can The Demise Of a. Rule 24 IFPA Motion, In And Of Itself, “Bid” An Appeal [Cnrz v. Hauck, 404 U.S. 59, 62 (1971)]? Question 3. Does Appropriate Due Process Of Law Follow From The Demise Of aRuie 24 IFPA Motion, Only If Sone Interval OfUmels Extender! To a Litigant. After Its Demise For Remitting An Appeal Court's Filing Fee? Question 4. Regarding Non-Habeas Corpus Litigants Proceeding In The United States Courts, By Appropriate Due Process of Law!, Should The Briefing Rules Of The Federal Rules Of Appellate Procedure, Whereby Issues On Appeal Can Be Deemed Waived, Not. Be Biforced If They Are Not Firmly Established and Regularly Followed In The Same Way They Are Not Enforced Regarding Habeas Corpus Litigants? And By That Development, Should The Briefing Error Purportedly Identified In The Present Case, Whereby All My Issues On Appeal Were Deemed Waived, Also Not Be Enforced? Question 5. IfThe Purpose Of a Statement. Of Issues Mandated For Inclusion In a Rule 24 IFPA Motion And/Or Its Affidavit Is Not To Apprise The Parties Or The Court Of The Issues On Appeal, But Rather Has For Its Purpose to Present ”Ariy Issue Not Frivolous” Coppedge v. £ZS, 369 ILS. 438. 445 (1962), By Appropriate Due Process Of Law, Does An Exhaustive Statement Of Issue Mandated In The Rule, Such That Any Issue Not. Included In The Statement Can Be Deemed Waived, Form An Arbitrarily-Imposed Impediment To The Continuity Of Hie Appeal? Question 6, Do The Panoply Of The Federal Rules Of Appellate Procedure Adequately Instruct Between Rules 27 and 28 Which One Pertains To aRule 24 IFPA Motion? Combined With That Question, If I Provided Appropriate References To Hie District Court Record And To My Written Oppositions To Hie District Comfs Findings Eveiywhere And Throughout My Rule 24 IFPA Motion, (Jan It Rightfully Be Staled That I Failed To Brief My Issues Ou Ajjpeal Or Committed a Briefing Error At AH Such That All My Issues Presented On Appeal Should Be Deemed Waived? Question 7. Should Not Naming Hie Court Being Appealed Fran In Hie Statement Of Issues Of a Rule 24 IFPA Motion And/Or Its Affidavit Not Invalidate Hie Statement In Hie Same Way That Not Naming Hie Court Being Appealed To In a Notice Of Appeal Does Not Invalidite Hie Notice Of Appeal? Question S. If Hie Present Case In The District Court. And fa The Appeal Court. Was Litigated Es Parte, Could Any Possible Prejudice Have Manifested By The Briefing Error Purportedly Identified In The Present Case [Net Naming The Court. Being Appealed Fran fa The Statement Of Issues Of a Rule 24 IFPA Motion], 'Hi?.! The Appeal Court Relied On In Deeming All My Issues Presented On Appeal Waived? Question 9. If a. Holding The Filth Circuit Court. Of Appeal Announced In Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 179, 202 (5^ Qr. Jun. 30, 1993), Extending Time To Litigants For Obtaining And Remitting Appeal Court Filing Fees After the Demise of a Rule 24 Motion, Forms a Departure From The Supreme Court's Announcement In Cruz v. Hauck, 404 U.S. 59, 62 (1971), Holding That The Demise Of a Rule 24 Motion “Ends” The Appeal, By Appropriate Due Process of Law, Are The Fifth Circuit's Extensions Of Time In That Posture Gratuitous, Such That They Can Be Dispensed With On a Random Arbitrary Basis, And Is Die Present Case An Example Of Anomalous Outcomes In Die Path OfDiose Developments? n Die caption of the case does not contain the names of all the defendants who would be served if the case were reinstated from its dismissal in the District Court, A copy of the Docket report is attached, App’x AK. Only John Bel Edwards; James LeBlanc; Eugene Powers; Whalen Gibbs; and John Hooper are responding patties in this proceeding.