1. In 2016 Petitioner Dino Constance filed a § 2254 Petition concerning widespread constitutional violations, to include pervasive Brady violations and violations of Supreme Court holdings. (See Amended Motion under CrR 7.8) The Petition was backed by a very voluminous and powerful post-conviction record containing thousands of pages of hard documentary evidence. Respondent failed to furnish the vast majority of the extensive post-conviction record under Habeas Rule 5, making proper de novo review impossible. The last reasoned decision (the R&R) was crafted in the absence of vast exculpatory evidence. The District Court then erroneously denied habeas relief and a Certificate of Appealability (COA) despite overlength Objections and the "overwhelming" merits of the case. The R&R was 50 pages long and read like a rubber stamp list of the 50 page State Unpublished Appellate Opinion. The R&R/Dist. Court order failed to address meritorious grounds raised.
2. After reconstructing the record, counsel then filed a Motion for a COA with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. A two-judge panel erroneously denied the motion without oral arguments (which had been requested) stating no reasons or analysis beyond a one-sentence citation of the legal standard involved. The denial by a two-judge panel, without oral arguments, violated FRAP 34.
3. A Motion for Reconsideration followed, which was similarly denied and the case was closed, by another two-judge panel without oral arguments.
4. Petitioner later filed a comprehensive Motion under FRAP 2 seeking habeas relief or a COA with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The clerk refused to docket the motion because the case had been prematurely closed (before de novo review of the reasonably complete record), even though reopening of the case was requested as relief.
5. Petitioner then filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Mandamus with the Ninth Circuit, seeking an order for proper de novo review of a reasonably completed record (which had been reconstructed by prior counsel after the R&R was drafted), or a COA. A three judge panel denied the writ due to the stated failure to meet the test for extraordinary circumstances set out in Bauman, despite the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Buck v. Davis, holding that the test for extraordinary circumstances was the wrong test, and that the court should have only considered the prerequisite test for a COA under AEDPA. The Ninth Circuit then closed the case and ordered that "no further filings will be entertained", depriving Petitioner of his right to en banc review in violation of FRAP 35. Petitioner sought Certiorari, but review was denied.
6. These rulings occurred in a case with dozens of documented Brady violations, and in the complete absence of any cumulative Brady analysis being conducted by any court, in spite of the Supreme Court's requirement for same in Kyles v. Whittley, and recently reaffirmed in Wearry v. Cain. The lack of a cumulative Brady analysis was consistently briefed by Petitioner and his counsel as the #1 issue, but was never commented on by any court at any point in the proceedings.
7. By way of the above-noted application of incorrect standards & tests, and violations of court rules, Petitioner has been denied his fundamental right to appeal, in a case where vast exculpatory evidence was never considered. This evidence conclusively demonstrates Mr. Constance's right to a COA (under the correct standard), if not a Writ of Habeas Corpus, and would lead to inevitable exoneration.