I.
THe Astinat CouT Enraned in Drsaissing the Complannt TO Heck bAe And
4
CAW lelanT A wriT of CenTiORtRi ?

II. Did the DistTa covl enreR in necanfrEd He aase CoplAN, by is dis6o
D D C MA MA E P E PA E DU AT
8
r C u e he n Fi dMS C 1100 2 SAMpoN U HOrd. Wh He iNTEd sTTEs SIxH CMUT CoUr oF ApeAN EMRd H NOTgNT
Ing EnaAtnn ng e ioo cNA w of Ce?

x
TT
U E V T
WOT CAnGrANT A WNIT If CEnTIOAi?

V.
12
Righ T Mss H , MANp, H H, B T A T M ,
He DSTUT CORT And IrMEd STuTEs SiXtH CrOIT CoorT of ApEAL EdaNS ANE paiN EMAs; EdVr's
IN laW DEqUAINg A RENnd WhNE Hi's COORT CAN bIATT A MNT OF LENTIORALi ?

peliek Reyvestal
15
TY.

Whether the district court erred in dismissing the petitioner's complaint for failure to state a claim under the heightened Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard, and whether the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals erred in affirming the district court's dismissal