Whether a state-to-federal removal action under 28 U.S.C. § 1443 qualifies for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a) or 1292(b)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether (a) a State-to-Federal Removal Action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443, expressly reserved for supplemental jurisdiction inside of (b) a 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Deprivation of Civil Rights, permissible parallel cross-claim to a_ state criminal proceeding (i.e. not requiring final favorable determination for the accused) (i) automatically qualifies for Interlocutory Appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a) as a special type of injunction as posited by the Petitioner; or, in the alternative (ii) such interlocutory movement is not foreclosed for appellate consideration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), good cause shown there under. (A “first impression” question.) Whether the willful suppression of certain legally required, and Constitutionally protected, forthright (i.e. without prompt) and timely disclosures (i.e. Brady disclosures and_ its California analog, Ca PC § 1054 (e.g. a “RAP” sheet of an accuser or other exculpatory evidence)) that prime (i.e. come before and by judicial precedence are not deemed “integral” to the judicial phase itself) the judicial phase of a state criminal proceeding are properly actioned in parallel to a state criminal proceeding under a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cross-claim, as posited by the Petitioner. (A question of public importance (28 U.S.C. § 2101(e)))