I. Whether the Second Circuit on January 3, 2020 violated the law by fifth and fourteenth
Amendment by dismissing the appeal without ruling on the reasonable accommodation
request to appoint a lawyer for Jane Doe who cannot read or write at all due to
autism. For six years the district court and the circuits is related cases have force me an
autistic American to act as a lawyer for a severely autistic America whose autism
prevents her from reading and writing at all. With supporting medical records. Whether
district court and the second circuit can violate the Americans with Disabilities Act
severely autistic American who disability prevent her from reading and writing which
have already confirmed as a fact by medical records provided to the court to received
reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act to prove Jane
Doe 's predictable assessments $ 35.108 (2) iii. (C)(E)(K). Whether it lawful for the
district court and the second circuit to force a family member who also has
developmental § 35.108 (2) iii. (C)(E)(K disabilities to act as a lawyer for severely
predictable assessments § 35.108 (2) iii. (C)(E)(K) that prevents her from reading and
writing at all. I have won six circuit appeals proven discrimination in the district court
against people with autism however the district court and the second circuit is still forcing
me to act as a lawyer for an autistic American without any accommodations.

II. Whether the District Court of Connecticut and violated the Civil Justice Reform Act by
not reporter outstanding motions for over a year. When the Civil Justice Reform Act
requires the District Court to report all motions pending more than six months, all bench
trials submitted more than six months, all bankruptcy appeals pending more than six
months, all Social Security appeal cases pending more than six months. Not only did the
district court fail to report this case to the justice department 's Administrative Office but
the district court also failed to report all pro se cases in Connecticut from 2012-2019.
(with the exception of pro se who have law degrees.)

III. Whether the second circuit and the district court acted more as a defense counsel than a
neutral arbitrator as required by federal rules of civil appellate procedure. The district
court granted to proceed in forma pauperis in 28 U.S. Code § 1915 on April 26, 2018;
however the district court failed to serve the defendants in violations of "28 U.S. Code
S 1915 (d)"the officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and perform all
duties in such cases. " Or whether a district court and the second circuit need not provide
a justifying reason when denying a pro se litigant serves of the defendant the United
States. The District of Connecticut Court has targeted discriminated against poor pro se in
civil rights enforcement lawsuit as confirmed by the second circuit related case 16-3074
on January 18, 2018, where the district court of Connecticut never served the defendant
City of Hartford. The j udges' signatures don't appear on the decision, which has an
automated signature and stamp of Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe. Clerk Catherine O'Hagan
Wolfe, never made a brief schedule nor did the defendant write an answer to the brief.
Nor did the court address the allegations of the district court violating basic federal rules
of civil procedure or Americans with Disabilities act status; therefore discriminating
against the pro se litigants

Whether the Second Circuit violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments by dismissing the appeal without ruling on the reasonable accommodation request