2254 and its maze

We like to point out our views and opinions on where we find what we call an injustice as this helps to ensure transparency even when it comes to our government. Here we will discuss United States v. Robinson A.K.A. Michael Moore, Case No. 21-cv-1326 (D.D.C. 2022). Here he filed a pro se (filing without an attorney) motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) asking the District court of Columbia to vacate its previous order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. 2254 motion. Here he argued that he was not given an adequate opportunity to file a reply and have it considered, violations of rule 5 of Rules Governing 2254 motions in the District Court, the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia's order was not final and lacked jurisdiction to hear his appeal in first instance, and that the District Court in this case erred in believing that it did not have jurisdiction to hear his 2254 motion. Below are the arguments that Mr. Moore argued before the District Court: