No. 19-5483

Grant Thomas McAdams v. Washington

Lower Court: Washington
Docketed: 2019-08-07
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: civil-procedure collateral-review constitutional-protection due-process federal-constitution insufficient-evidence intent-to-commit-theft post-conviction-relief pro-se pro-se-petition standing state-court-procedure washington-state
Latest Conference: 2019-10-01
Question Presented (from Petition)

Does the Due Process protection of the federal Constitution apply to Washington State's collateral review procedures; if the such protections do apply, did Washington State courts violate Mr.McAdams' right to due process of the law by handling his petitions for post conviction relief in a way that appears unfair; where courts erroneously apply caselaw to dismiss Mr.McAdams pro se collateral review; where the State courts inaccurately represented material facts to find sufficient evidence of an intent to commit theft when the only well founded intent was to leave the dangerous environment; where the State courts similarly handled Mr.McAdams' previous collateral attack that claimed insufficient evidence existed to prove great bodily harm or an intent thereof, but the court fabricated sever injuries and circumstances while misappling caselaw to justify dismissing his case (see Appendix I for copy of the Writ of Certiorari that was time barred from this United State Supreme Court); and where Mr.McAdams clearly has shown to the State courts that Emad K. Mohammed-Salih ("Mr,Salih", the victim) was assaulted during which bystanders began threatening, yelling at, and running toward who was thought to be Mr.McAdams and only then did any indication of an intent appear when he ran to the presumably running car sitting in the street about a half a city block away, which was found about eleven blocks away within hours of the assault with all property intact, and that Mr.Salih was not missing any propoerty from his person?

Are Rules of Appellate Procuder (RAP) 16.1 through 16.18 along with Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 10.73.090 and RCW 10.73.100 ripe for judicial review concerning their constitutionality because they allowed the Washington state courts to deprive Mr.McAdams of a fair collateral review without first providing due process of the law, which hurts the public faith in the United State justice system?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does the Due Process protection of the federal Constitution apply to Washington State's collateral review procedures?

Docket Entries

2019-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2019-08-22
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-08-16
Waiver of right of respondent Washington to respond filed.
2019-07-01
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 6, 2019)

Attorneys

Grant Thomas McAdams
Grant T. McAdams — Petitioner
State of Washington
Gretchen Eileen VerhoefSpokane County Prosecutor's Office, Respondent