Involues: "Caprtal Offence" cases;
Class Action HabeasCorpus; lack ofjuvisdiction claim
Injudiclously predicated by the lower courts' striking refusal to yield to a 2o03 change in
law to Fed.R.Civ.P.23, in an exceptionally importont atypical Habeas Rule 2ld-based 'judgment-specific' class action habeas corpus case affecting the convicted felon "status of thousands of persons-including several in Caprtal Offense"cases- through a "failure toacquire juvisdiction"claim lamongst others stated against the 9t Judicial DistrictCourtof New Mexico ultimately stemming from the public exposure of the District's 32-year-long vrolation of due process
requirements of US.C.A. Const. Amends V and XIV, throngh secret applicatien of an illicit'custom"
which produced procedurally defective and structurally deficient Grand Jury "Bills of Indictment"
that were legally"invalid at issuance," your Petitioner, Pebeo J. Amaro, seeks reviewon the fillowing questons as well as consideration of any others "fairly included."PApp.K)

1.whether the lourt of Appeals prejudicially abused its discretion in denying both (ot(App.A)
and the Rehearing request (App.E; withoutcomment to review thell.S. District Courts summary
dismissal of the seldom-used habea's petition (Re.; Doc. I)on procedural grounds, where the
districtcourt dismissed "all class actionclaims based on Amaro's non-attorney'status without
reaching the underlying Constitutional claims (Apps. A, B, and (s):
(a) contrary to the Supreme Court's principles as announced in Slack u. Me Daniel; andlor,
(blwhere the lower courts have ruled that Amaro-as a non-attorney'"cannot adequately represent the interests of the putative class "(App.A)

2. Whether the decision below offends the U.S. Constitution's Habeas Corpus Suspension Clause,
Art. I, 59, cl.2; because the 10 th Circuit's restriction on whom may apply for habeas
corpus relief is an unjust restraint or a "suspension" of the "Ereat Writ "to a partrcular
class of persons or applicants and purports to preclude the court from entertaining an original application for habeas corpus reltef.

3.whether the lower courts' rulings in the present case, which is firstand foremost a habeas
corpus ad subjiciendum action, are rendered void and of no effect through each respective courts persistent disregard of affirmative responsibilities, where the improperconduct
Marked bylanon-complionce with the modern standards ofhabeas corpusproctice and procedure;
(r)

action clalms" (Apps.A,B, C, D, andE) on inapplicable procedural grounds with inapt
reliance on obsolete case law decided before the Legis lature's 2oo 3 Amendiments to Fed.R.Civ.
P.23, which fails to reflect changes to subdivision lelor embrace the new additions of
subdivisions (g) and (h), which necessarily affect and alter the previous nuture of the Rule's
to a Pro Se Petitioners

Whether the lower courts prejudicially abused their discretion in denying both COA and the Rehearing request to review the district court's summary dismissal of the habeas petition on procedural grounds