Whether California's Vexatious Litigant Laws
(CCP § 391(b)) violate the 1st, 8th and 14th
Amendments of the US Constitution, particularly
when a government agency is the movant, resulting
in the court ordering a homeless plaintiff in forma
pauperis to deposit a bond he could not afford,
dismissing the case.

Whether homeless petitioners' homelessness
(economic condition) are protected by antidiscriminatory provisions of California's Unruh
Civil Rights Act and 42 USC § 1983 particularly
when invoking the US Constitution's 14th
Amendment equal protection clause.

Whether Pro Se petitioners have the right to seek
class action status.

Whether the US District court erred when it
remanded the case back to state court when one of
the defendants is New York State domiciled Rolex
Watch USA, Inc., in violation of 28 USC § 1332
which provides the court diversity jurisdiction.

Whether the US District court erred when it
remanded the case back to state court when
PETITIONER competently alleged that defendants
acted as "State Actors" in the meaning of 42 USC §
1983, providing the district court original
jurisdiction.

Whether California's Vexatious Litigant Laws violate the 1st, 8th and 14th Amendments