Pursuant to Rule 14 of
Supreme Court of the United States
Rules effective July 1, 2019
Preface: Petitioner reiterated his multiple complaints
against Respondents throughout each of these court cases,
as referenced below.

1. As former attorneys for Petitioner Lucero, did
Respondents Konciljas violate Petitioner 's U.S. 14th
Amendment due process rights by not investigating Plain
Petitioner 's severe, near-death work-related multiple
injuries before filing a complaint in district court - which
complaint included all parties except for the two parties
that were the ones culpable for Petitioner 's multiple
injuries?

2. Did Respondents further violate Petitioner 's U.S. 14th
Amendment rights to due process by fading to proceed with
any normal legal action at all such that the Pueblo District
Court ruled against (Petitioner) Lucero with a Notice of
Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute - which laxness by
Respondent attorney Koncilja closed the legal doors on
Petitioner 's efforts to seek redress for his multiple life-
threatening work injuries?

3. Was Petitioner prejudiced and his due process rights
repeatedly violated by Colorado state courts and U.S.
Federal courts when those courts did not legally notice
that Petitioner had filed a timely - completed in all ways -
Motion for Default Judgment against Respondents, when
Respondents were forty-three (43) days late in filing
initial responsive pleading to Petitioner 's Amended
Complaint?

4. Does claim preclusion and/or res judicata apply to this
case at bar, which has never been at issue before or after
Petitioner Lucero had hired, then removed Denver attorney
Paul Gordon from the case against Konciljas - since Lucero
himself, proceeding pro se, has filed different, expanded
complaints against Defendants?

5. Why do higher courts not concur that Pueblo District
Court Judge Crockenberg was extremely biased when he
ruled 26 (twenty-six) times against Petitioner Lucero and in
favor of Respondents Konciljas when, e.g., Respondents
were 43 days late in answering Lucero 's Complaint against
Konciljas and Petitioner therefore had filed a complete
Motion for Default Judgment, but Judge Crockenberg ruled
that Respondents ' 43 days lateness in answering was not
late (with absolutely no excusable neglect proffered by
Konciljas), also e.g., when Judge Crockenberg denied
Petitioner extra time with three rulings (twice before
expiration of 60 day limit!) to file a Certificate of Review
against Respondents Konciljas?

6. Was it not clear that there was additional judicial bias by
Federal Magistrate Judge Tafoya against Petitioner when,
e.g., the judge failed repeatedly to rule for Petitioner, e.g.,
a.) pursuant to Civ. Procedure 4(d)(2) Motion to Recover
Service Expenses against Respondents, never understood
that it's clearly the absolute responsibility of the Federal
court to order Defendants to pay Petitioner service

Did Respondents violate Petitioner's 14th-amendment-due-process rights