Whether Petitioner, at the time of his personal injuries, was a private citizen and not an employee subject to exclusive remedy under Title VII

No question identified. : i Question PRrEsenTED : Congress gave the Courts inherent powers to curtail vexatious litigants’ abuse of the Court system by allowing the Courts to enact pre-filing orders before some vexatious litigant proceeds with another complaint. The Honorable Judge William H. Alsup stated that Petitioner was required to: “seek leave from this Court before filing any additional complaints against the Depariment of Labor, any of its employees, or against the United States or any other government official in connection with his disputes with the DOL stemming from his prior employment in the Office of Federal Programs Contract Compliance.” Whether the court below erroneously held, in agreement with the District Court, that Petitioner’s claims fell within the scope of the pre-filing order, in connection with the DOL, stemming from his prior employment in the Office of Federal Programs Contract Compliance, is cognizable, unless the Petitioner can show that his proposed complaints do not fall within the scope of the prefiling order entered against him. Whether Petitioner, at the time of his personal injuries, was a private citizen — and not an employee subject to exclusive remedy under Title VII. Whether the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) conflicts with Title VII and the Preliminary Injunction. Whether the Ninth Circuit and the District court abused its discretion by denying Petitioner his Constitutional rights to a Prelimimary Injunction. ii Tas_e Or Contents Page STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED. .:::esccces