1. Did the Ninth Circuit err in not finding an appropriate issue for appeal, where the
magistrate judge failed to find that medically verified permanent limitations of disability
preventing timely compliance with court processes are "exceptional circumstances''' for
appointment of counsel; where the magistrate judge recommended dismissal with prejudice
bv reason that appointment of counsel was denied and where had appointment been
granted, leave to amend would have issued, (See Appendix F) If merit is found for leave to
amend bv able-bodied counsel . then merit should also be found for leave to amend for pro se
plaintiffs with disability. Dismissal with prejudice should not have issued. Thus, appeal is
warranted where there is an apparent failure to comply with 28 U.S.C.1915 and appearance of
discriminatory bias against pro se plaintiffs with disability.

2. Should the Ninth Circuit have decided the motion for appointment of counsel timely
filed by petitioner with severe acute medical conditions and permanent limitations of disability
seeking assistance with the pre-filing process and appeal, prior to issue of an Order
dismissing the appeal for allegedly stating "insubstantial 9 issues on appeal; in particular, because
consideration of said motion may have changed the outcome of the case.

3. Whether a review of petitioner 's submission of district court orders on appeal and
statement of facts or law which are relied upon for purposes of the appeal are in good faith,
"merit further review, " and should have been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915.

4. Did the Ninth Circuit err in alleging pursuant to a 20 year old pre-filing order, that the
issues on appeal are "insubstantial denying further review; thereby, wrongfully sustaining a
dismissal with prejudice without leave to amend, where the facts/law on the merits of any cause
in the Second Amended Complaint were NOT considered, where petitioner 's motion for
appointment of counsel to accommodate limitations of disability for timely compliance with
medically impossible demands of the court was denied, where the second amended complaint
stated facts and authority upon which a claim for relief could be granted and/or amended to state
a claim was denied and where a dismissal with prejudice without leave to amend was not proper
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915.

5. To avoid erroneous deprivation of constitutional rights, including right of access to the
court; should this Court determine that pro se plaintiffs with severe limitations of disability
and/or stigma of self representation prejudicing compliance with court processes, receive
accommodations appropriate to his/her limitations of disability and/or appointment of counsel to
assist in addressing the demands of court processes rather than suffer a dismissal with prejudice
to avoid such accommodations/leave to amend and/or to avoid indicia of discriminatory bias.

Did the Ninth Circuit err in finding an appropriate issue for appeal, where the magistrate judge failed to find that medically verified permanent limitations of disability preventing timely compliance with court processes are 'exceptional circumstances' for appointment of counsel