Did the Second Circuit Court abuse its discretion when it denied the Petitioner's motion to recall the Court's mandate? See Exhibit B

Did the Federal District Court Judge Glenn T. Suddaby attempt to cover up for the five Appellate Division justices stealing the Petitioner's original CPLR Article 78 and its $315.00 filing fee when stated in Appendix B July 14, 2017 on page 24, second paragraph, "In any event even if the Third Department did steal Plaintiffs original Article 78, the Fourth Department ruled the mandamus does not lie?" At the time of making that statement, because of shown bias, judge Suddaby should have recused himself from the injunction proceeding as the Petitioner had asked him to do in a recusal motion. See Exhibit C.

Did Judge Suddaby abuse his discretion when he ruled the Petitioner's claims are barred by the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine?

Did Judge Suddaby abuse his discretion and deny the petitioner due process when he denied the Petitioner injunctive relief when he had in the record before his eyes in which he also knew the Appellate Division justices also had before their eyes when they denied the appeal application, a Rensselaer District Attorney's FOIL lawsuit affidavit stating that at the time of the Petitioner's 1997 trial, there were recorded police radio transmissions missing from being heard on the police tape, which he knew as a judge were Brady federal law and Rosario state law violations of withholding evidence?

Did the Second Circuit Court abuse its discretion when it denied the Petitioner's motion to recall the Court's mandate?