DOES A UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEPUTY CLERK ABUSE THEIR DISCRETION/AUTHORITY WHEN THEY REFUSE TO TAKE ANY ACTION ON A LITIGANT'S TIME EXTENSION MOTION BECAUSE THAT DEPUTY CLERK REFUSED TO CONSIDER THE PROVISION OF RULE 26(b) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE IN MAKING THAT NON-ACTION DETERMINATION, AND RELIED SOLELY UPON RULE 40 OF THOSE RULES?

And, if so,

DOES A UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ABUSE ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIES RECONSIDERATION OF A DEPUTY CLERK'S NON-ACTION ABUSE OF DISCRETION DETERMINATION?

DOES A UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEPUTY CLERK ABUSE THEIR DISCRETION/AUTHORITY WHEN THEY TAKE A PROPERLY FILED AND TITLED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF A DEPUTY CLERK'S PRIOR DETERMINATION AND (1) REFUSES TO PRESENT THAT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION TO THE COURT FOR ITS CONSIDERATION, (2) DECIDES TO RECLASSIFY THE RECONSIDERATION MOTION AND TREAT IT AS A MOTION TO FILE FOR REHEARING OUT-OF-TIME, AND (3) THEN REFUSES TO PRESENT THAT OUT-OF-TIME MOTION TO THE COURT UNLESS THE APPELLANT FILES THE ACTUAL REHEARING MOTION WITHIN WHAT IS ACTUALLY ONE SINGLE DAY?

And, if so,

DOES A UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ABUSE ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIES RECONSIDERATION OF A DEPUTY CLERK'S ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN DETERMINING TO RECLASSIFY A PROPERLY TITLED RECONSIDERATION MOTION AND/OR IN DETERMINING A TIME LIMIT FOR FILING FOR REHEARING THAT IN ACTUALITY IS A SINGLE DAY?

DOES A UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN ITS DECISION NOT TO APPOINT COUNSEL FOR A DETAINED INDIGENT APPELLANT, IN A CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION, WHERE (1) THE APPELLATE COURT FAILS TO EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION UNDER A PROPER ANALYSIS OF THE SITUATION; (2) THE CASE INVOLVES MULTIPLE CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATE CLAIMS; (3) THE DISTRICT COURT'S MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IS 39 PAGES LONG; (4) THE RECORD ON APPEAL IS OVER 3,750 PAGES; (5) THE APPELLEE NEEDED, AND OBTAINED PERMISSION FROM THE APPELLATE COURT, TO FILE A DOUBLE-PAGE LENGTH BRIEF; (6) THE APPELLANT'S JAILERS INTERFERED WITH HIS ACCESS TO BRING THE APPEAL BY PLACING HIM ON A LEGAL REFERENCE MATERIAL RESTRICTION; (7) THE APPELLANT WAS UNABLE TO FILE A REPLY BECAUSE OF THE JAILERS' ACTIONS; (8) THE APPELLANT'S JAILERS SEIZED 12" OF THE APPELLANT'S FILES FOR THE CASE; AND (9) THE APPELLANT'S SERVICE OF LEGAL MAIL WAS SO IMPAIRED THAT HE WAS UNABLE TO FILE ANY REHEARING MOTION IN THE APPEAL?

Does a court of appeals deputy clerk abuse discretion by refusing to consider appellate procedure rules in a time extension motion decision