Constitutional and Civil Rights
District Court
1. District Court FAILS to Consider Indigent Pro Se Plaintiffs Filings and Motions
Whatsoever. Is it a violation of rights protected by the constitution, civil rights, right of
equitable access to justice and/or error, abuse of discretion, arbitrary act, capricious act
or otherwise improper act or decision when the district court refused to consider
indigent pro se Plaintiffs filings and motions by way of Romero's (116) [Appendix B.2.3]
which instructed the clerks to: (a) cease filing indigent pro se Plaintiffs filings and
documents as active filings to be considered by the court; and (b) to instead lodge the
filings as inactive, not to be considered whatsoever. See Context of Questions for detail.

2. Delay and Thus Denial of Justice. Is it a violation of rights protected by the
constitution, civil rights, right of equitable access to justice and/or error, abuse of
discretion, arbitrary act, capricious act or otherwise improper act or decision when the
district court inexplicably delayed for nearly 3 years in the (a) termination of Ogden and
Weber defendant(s); and (b) the dismissal of Plaintiffs IFP granted complaint for lack of
jurisdiction? See Context of Questions for detail.

3. Did the district court otherwise err, abuse its discretion, act arbitrarily and/or
capriciously or otherwise act improperly in this case?

Appeals Court
4. Appeals Courts FAILS to Consider PlaintiftfAppellant's Motion for
Reconsideration/Rehearing. Is it a violation of rights protected by the constitution, civil
rights, right of equitable access to justice and/or error, abuse of discretion, arbitrary act,
capricious act or otherwise improper act or decision when the appeals court FAILED to
consider, and disposed of, indigent pro se Plaintiffs Motion for
Reconsideration/Rehearing with no explanation whatsoever? See Context of Questions
for detail.

5. Did the appeals court otherwise err, abuse its discretion, act arbitrarily and/or
capriciously or otherwise act improperly in this case?

Whether a district court's failure to consider an indigent pro se plaintiff's filings violates constitutional due process and access to justice