A priori, whether Plaintiff-Appellant's Due Process rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments were abridged and subjugated in the Ninth Circuit Court's Dispositive Order (ECF 10, November 6, 2018), in denying the Plaintiff-Appellant's request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP, ECF 5), without the opportunity to file an Opening Brief and Excerpts of Record, or opportunity to pay the filing fee (ECF 3, 10), indicating, in their opinion, alone, that the litigation was "frivolous," which is disputed, itself requiring Due Process.

Secondarily, whether the federal courts have Jurisdiction under FRAP 21(c) Special Writ for Political Asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(2), a derivative of the Expatriation Act of 1868 (the United States has always implicitly denied the doctrine of perpetual allegiance through its naturalization laws, providing federal statutory standing); and, with federal authority under FRCP 57 Court Decree, in such Rule's own authority with federal statutory standing thereof relying on 28 U.S.C. § 2201, for the Creation of such Remedy, in so moving. (generally, USDC SD Cal, 18-810, Doc. 9, Petition, pg. 12, ¶; see also, Id., Jurisdiction, pg. 12, ¶ 13; and, Notice of Appeal, Doc. 12, pg. 1-2, each in the Appendix).

Finally, once establishing federal jurisdiction, as set forth with the district court; and, each of: (i) subjugated by the Ninth Circuit (ECF 10) denying the Petitioner Due Process, as to be Constitutionally afforded (e.g. as protected by the 5th and 14th Amendments) to file an Opening Brief, and accompanying Excerpts of Record; and, (ii) moving tangentially in the Ninth Circuit in 18-56107; and 18-56202, in good faith; if the Relief sought, in whole or in part, in the Petition (Doc. 9) with the district court; with due process subjugated by the Circuit Court (ECF 10), is one form of potential redress, independent of the party or parties liable for such, and such redress requested, itself, constructively permissible in Petitioner's pending 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Deprivation of Civil Rights cases, pending in the Ninth Circuit (18-56107 (Denied Bounds Access to Courts), and 18-56202 (4th and 8th Amendment violations)).

Whether Plaintiff-Appellant's Due Process rights were abridged