I. Whether or not the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has
denied Matthew Phillips procedural due process by denying leave
for Phillips to file a second or successive habeas petition when
Phillips has no adequate or effective remedy for the protection
of a fraudulently suppressed right?

II. Whether or not 28 U.S.C. § 2244 is denying Phillips equal
protection of the law as 28 U.S.C. § 2255 offers Federal prisoners
a gateway for execution of sentence through 28 U.S.C. § 2241, but,
since Phillips is a state prisoner, he is held subject to second
or successive bars of 28 U.S.C. § 2244 WHICH DO NOT challenge the
conviction NOR the imposed sentence, BUT ONLY the execution of the
sentence, to-wit: the way the sentence is being carried out?

III. Whether or not the Respondents have committed Deceptive and
Fraudulent Acts on Matthew Phillips, as well as a suspect class of
ALL Alabama prisoners convicted, sentenced, and whose crimes occ
urred between the years 1969 and 201.5, by SUBVERTING a State Created
Liberty Interest in donating BLOOD to the American Red Cross to
recieve a thirty (30) day deduction in the aggregate sentence
once yearly, of which Phillips would have done every opportunity
HAD THE RESPONDENTS PERFORMED THEIR DUTIES ACCORDINGLY, BUT INSTEAD
the Alabama Courts and Officials have protected the Respondents
when it is proved they intentionally and willfully suppressed a
state created liberty interest and subverted our Constitutions and
Government by BRAINWASHING Phillips to LOOK NO FURTHER THAN THEIR
RULES, REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES, thus denying and depriving
Phillips of due process by notice to receive good time and now
Phillips is receiving ex post facto punishment through no fault of his?

Whether the Eleventh Circuit denied Matthew Phillips procedural due process by barring a second habeas petition when no adequate remedy exists for a fraudulently suppressed right