Should this Supreme Court Grant Certiorari, to determine this question of first impression "Dose the specific langauge of Federal Habeas Corpus Rule 8(a), provide for that: A federal district court judge's decision on whether or not to grant evidentairy hearing, must be in the form of an written order, with sufficient facts and law, that makes appellate review possible, when a federal district court judge elects not to appoint a magistrate judge to over see evidentairy hearing decision?

Should this Supreme Court Grant Certiorari, to determine this question of first impression. "Dose Due Process and Equal Protection under the Fifth, Fourteenth Amendment, provide, and would require that a decision under statutory federal habeas corpus rule 8(a), be in the form of a written order, signifying that a federal district court judge has completed and complied with the statutory commands, when a federal disttrict court judge elects not to appoint a magistrate judge to over see evidentairy decision?'

Should this Supreme Court Grant Certiorari, to determine this question of first impression. "Should due process and equal protection under the Fifth, F ourteenth, and redress under the First Amendment of the constitution, require that federal habeas corpus rule 8(a), require that federal district court judges who elect not to appoint a magistrate judge that the judge's opinion should contain sufficient facts and law when determining whether the State Court, violated petitioner's right to full and fair evidentairy hearing under a "Brady," violation claim, when petitioner asked the State Court's for evidentairy hearing, in accordance to Townsend v Sam, Supra?

Should this Supreme Court Grant Certiorari, to determine this question of first impression. Should due process and equal protection under the Fifth, Fourteenth and redress under the First Amendment, of the Constitution, requiring that this written order under habeas corpus rule 8(a), evidentairy hearing determination, must be filed with the clerk of the court and servered upon all parties, where petitioner waould have 28 days to file a motion to alter or amend the order under civil rules of procdure rule 59, when a district court judge who elect not to appoint a magistrate judge to over see evidentairy hearing decision?"

"Should: This Supreme Court's legal reasoning found in Shlagenhuf v Holder, be applied here to petitioner's issues of first impression, concerning federal habeas corpus rule 8(a), language construction in the questions presented here, where the court found in Holder, that: "It's the duty of this Supreme Court to directly forumlate and put in force statutory rules," granting certiorari, to set forth clear language for rule 8(a), evidentairy decision, by a federal judge who elects not to appoint a magistrate judge to make evidentairy decision?"

Did the Sixth Circuit Court have the power to decide the merits of petitioner's writ of mandamus?

"Should this Supreme Court in exercising it's appellate review, apply this court's holdings found in Cheney Supra,: "That the writ may not issue, while altermative avenues or relief remain availi.ble," to the Sixth Circuit Court's panel's May 23 2018, opinion?"

(a), "To use Cheney Supra, to determinate, whether the Sixth Circuit court's panel mistakenly applied petitioner's pleadings after August 13, 2009, and before January 18, 2018s, filing of petitioner's writ of mandamus, to determine whether

Should federal habeas corpus rule 8(a) require a written order from a federal district court judge when not appointing a magistrate judge to oversee an evidentiary hearing decision?