Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit erred in dismissing the interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction, thereby violating the due process clause and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

QUESTIONS PRESENTED RAISE PRESSING ISSUES OF NATIONAL imPoRTANCE ¢ 1, WHETHER THE UNITED STATES Couier of APPEALS FoR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ERRED IN DismissinG THe INTERLOCUTORY ApPEAL FOR LACK of JURISDICTION THEpEeBY VIOLATING THE DUE PRocess CLAUSE AND THE EQUAL PROTELTION CLAUSE OF THE FourRTEENTH AMeENOMENT To THe ConsTITUTIoss oF THE UNITED STATES OF AmeRica. Z. WHETHER THE UNITEN STATES DisTRieT CourT Ss MAGISTRATE JUdGE, RoERT m. FUMAN, ERRED in DENYING PLMTiFF's / PeTMoner’s WeTions FoR DISQUALIFICATION OF MAGISTRATE TUDGE wile) THE MAGISTRATE JUOGCE DENIED SAID MOTION WITHOUT EXPLANMTION ANDO FAILED To DISCLOSE THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW... WHICH 15 NECESSARY To ASCERTAIN THE GRoUNDS of THE TUDGMWENT. QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 3. WHETHER THE Denial OF MoTION WITHOUT EXPLANATION AYO THE FAILURE To DISCLosée FINOWES OF FACT AND COXcLLisions OF LAW ConsTiTUTE “FRAUQULENT CoacEAUMENT” BY MAGISTRATE JSUdGE ROBERT mM. TUNMAn, 4. WHETHER THE Uni TED STATES DISTRICT CouRT's MAGISTRATE JUOGE ROBERT M. TUMAN ERRED WHEN HE Denied THE WoTION FoR DISQUALIFICATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE BASED on HIs ows BENT OF MIND, BIASES, PReTUDICES, PARTIALITY Ano NOT THE PMRTICULAR Clams AT I55UeE. 5. WHETHER THe UNITED sTHTES DISTRICT Court PRécricED UN CONSTITUTIONAL DISCRIMWATION AGAUSST THE DISADVANTAGED, PooR AND BLACK, PLAINTIFF / PETITIONER WHEN IT DEED MoTioyFoR DISQUALIFICATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE ANO yucATE THE HEALING DATE THEREBY VIOLATING THE ue PRocess cliuse ANO THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE of THE FouRTEENTH AMENOMENT To THE ConsTiTUTION OF THe UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, G. WHETHER THe PLAWITI FF / PETITIONER HAD A RIGHT To BE HEARS ANO A RIGHT To A HEARWG To PRESENT EVIDENCE To suPPoRT THe MOTION FoR DISQUALIFICATION OF MAGISTRATE TUHGE AVO THE NEED FoR THE DISQUALIFICATION, INSTERID OF THE MOTION BEING DECIDED on THE PAPERS. 7 WHETHER THe UNITED STATES Disreier CouRT ERRED wien IT NEGLECTED TO, FAILED To, OR REFUSED To AnALi2eE ok Assess THE PARTICULAR Cldims AT IosE In PLamTiers / PETITIONER'S Merion FoR DISQUALIFICATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE. 3. WHETHER THE NEGLECT, FAILURE, OR REFUSAL OF THE UNITED STATES DisT2ict COURT To ANALIZ2E THe PARTICULAR Cl4Aims Ur issue IN PULWITIFE S/ PETITIONER 's MoTIEN FoR DISQUALIFICATION OF MAGISTRATE TUOGE ConstiTUTE DERELICTION OF DUTY BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE Ropeer w. PUWAn. 4 WHETHER THe NEGLECT, FuiLURe, OR REFUSAL oF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT To DISCLOSE THE FINOWGS OF FACT ANS Conclusions oF LAW, As Required BY FENERAL Rule oF Civil PRocebuRE Rule 52.(a)(1), in (tS ORDER NENYWG moTior) ConsTiTUTE DERELICTIOS OF Duty.