WAS IT NOT A DENIAL OF PETITIONER'S 7th AMENDMENT RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL FOR THE DISTRICT COURT TO GRANT RESPONDENT(S) SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE OF LACK OF CAUSATION EVIDENCE WHEN THERE WAS OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE TO PROVE CAUSATION, INCLUDING TEMPLE LUNG CENTER PULMONOLOGIST, BOARD CERTIFIED PULMONOLOGIST, RADIOLOGIST ANALYSIS OF CHEST X-RAYS, ECHO TREADMILL TEST, PULMONARY FUNCTION TEST, 6-MINUTE WALK TEST AND APPROXIMATELY ELEVEN EYE WITNESSES WHOM KNEW PETITIONER TO SMOKE KOOL CIGARETTES, TOP TOBACCO AND NEWPORT AND THERE WAS A GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT THAT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR THE RESPONDENTS ON THE ISSUE OF CAUSATION AND DISTRICT COURT USED INACCURATE FACTS TO RENDER DECISION?

WAS IT NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, PLAIN ERROR AND A DENIAL OF PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO TRIAL GUARANTEED BY THE 7th AMENDMENT, U.S. CONSTITUTION FOR THE DISTRICT COURT TO DENY PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST RESPONDENTS R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY AND ITG BRANDS UPON THE GROUND OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, BASED UPON JUDGE KESSLER'S OPINION IN D.C. CIRCUIT CASE, LLS. V. PHILIP MORRIS, ET AL., 449 F.SUPP.2D 1, 566 F.3D 1095 (D.C. CIR. 2009) IN WHICH RESPONDENT R.J. REYNOLD TOBACCO COMPANY WAS FOUND TO BE GUILTY IN THE SUIT ON THE ISSUES OF (1) CONSPIRACY; (2) CONCEALMENT OF HEALTH HAZARDS OF SMOKING; (3) TARGETING MINORS FOR CIGARETTE SALES; (4) MANIPULATION OF NICOTINE; (5) ADDING AMMONIA BOOSTER WARRANTING REVERSAL?

WAS THERE NOT BLATANT JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT/BIAS/PREJUDICE IN THE DISTRICT COURT WHICH DEPARTED FROM THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, 7th AMENDMENT, STATUTE, AND THIS COURT'S DECISIONS, INTER ALIA, THE COURT "STREAMLINED" COMPLEX LITIGATION FOR THE BENEFIT OF RESPONDENTS?

DID THE DISTRICT COURT (KEARNEY, J.) CONSTANTLY ABUSE ITS DISCRETION, AND IGNORED FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, RULE 6(c)(1) TO THE DETRIMENT OF PRO-SE PETITIONER BY FAILING TO GIVE PETITIONER SUFFICIENT TIME TO RESPOND TO RESPONDENT(S) WRITTEN MOTIONS, WHERE THE COURT (KEARNEY, J.) WOULD ISSUE A DECISION WITHIN A DAY, BEFORE PETITIONER HAD SUFFICIENT TIME TO RESPOND?

WAS IT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND VIOLATION OF THE 7th AMENDMENT OF THE U.S CONSTITUTION GUARANTEE FOR FAIR TRIAL FOR THE DISTRICT COURT TO DENY PETITIONER'S WRITTEN REQUEST FOR A EXPERT TO BE APPOINTED, AT RESPONDENT'S EXPENSE, OR ALTERNATELY, GRANT AN EXTENSION OF TIME SO PETITIONER COULD

Was it not a denial of petitioner's 7th Amendment right to jury trial