THE DISTRICT COURT ERRONEOUSLY HELD THAT PETITIONER'S SUPPLEMENTAL HABEAS PETITION RAISING NUMEROUS CLAIMS THROUGH COUNSEL WAS UNTIMELY FILED BECAUSE IT DID NOT RELATE BACK TO THE PETITION PETITIONER INITIALLY FILED PRO SE, AND ALTERNATIVELY, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PERIOD SHOULD BE TOLLED IN PETITIONER'S CASE IN LIGHT OF HIS EXTENSIVE HISTORY OF MENTAL ILLNESS. US CONST, AMS VI, XIV; CONST, 1963, ART 1, §§ 17, 20?

THIS COURT SHOULD OVERRULE THE DECISIONS IN HILL V MITCHELL, 842 F.3D 910 (CA6, 2016) AND WATKINS V DEANGELO-KIPP, 854 F.3D 846 (CA6, 2017). BECAUSE THEY UNFAIRLY INFRINGE ON PETITIONER'S ABILITY TO PRESENT HIS CLAIMS FOR REVIEW. US CONST, AMS VI, XIV; CONST, 1963, ART 1, §§ 17, 20?

PETITIONER'S FIRST PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, FILED IN 2008, SHOULD BE THE STARTING POINT WHEN DECIDING IF THE ISSUES RAISED IN HIS AMENDED PETITION CAN "RELATE BACK" TO THAT ORIGINAL FILING,

Whether the district court erroneously held that petitioner's supplemental habeas petition was untimely filed because it did not relate back to the initial pro se petition, and whether the statute of limitations should be tolled due to petitioner's history of mental illness