Does a court of appeals deputy clerk abuse discretion by refusing to consider appellate procedure rules in a time extension motion decision

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. DOES A UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEPUTY CLERK ABUSE THEIR WHEN THEY REFUSE: TO TAKE. ANY ACTION ON A LITIGANT"S TIME EXTENSION MOTION BECAUSE THAT DEPUTY CLERK REFUSED : TO CONSIDER THE PROVISION OF RULE 26(b) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE“ IN MAKING THAT NON-ACTION DETERMINATION, AND RELIED SOLELY UPON ‘RULE 40 OF THOSE RULES? : And, if so, DOES A UNITED STATES‘ COURT OF APPEALS ABUSE ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIES RECONSIDERATION OF A DEPUTY CLERK'S NON-ACTION ABUSE OF DISCRETION DETERMINATION? 2. DOES A UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEPUTY CLERK ABUSE THEIR WHEN THEY TAKE A PROPERLY FILED AND TITLED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF A DEPUTY CLERK'S PRIOR DETERMINATION AND (1) REFUSES TO PRESENT THAT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION TO THE COURT FOR ITS CONSIDERATION;: (2) DECIDES TO RECLASSIFY THE RECONSIDERATION MOTION AND TREAT IT. AS:A MOTION: TO FILE FOR REHEARING OUT-OF-TIME, AND (3) THEN REFUSES TO PRESENT THAT OUT-OF-TIME MOTION TO THE COURT UNLESS THE APPELLANT FILES THE ACTUAL REHEARING MOTION WITHIN WHAT IS ACTUALLY ONE SINGLE DAY? And, if so, DOES A UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ABUSE ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIES RECONSIDERATION OF A DEPUTY CLERK'S ABOSE OF DISCRETION IN DETERMINING TO RECLASSIFY A PROPERLY TITLED RECONSIDERATION MOTION AND/OR IN DETERMINING A TIME LIMIT FOR FILING FOR REHEARING THAT IN ACTUALITY IS A SINGLE DAY? 3. DOES A UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN ITS DEGISION NOT TO APPOINT COUNSEL FOR A DETAINED INDIGENT APPELLANT, IN A CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION, WHERE (1) THE APPELLATE COURT FAILS TO EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION UNDER A PROPER ANALYSIS OF THE’ SITUATION: (2) THE CASE INVOLVES MULTIPLE CONSTITUTIONAL AND’ STATE CLAIMS; (3) THE DISTRICT COURT'S MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IS 39 PAGES LONG; i (4) THE RECORD ON APPEAL IS OVER 3,750 PAGES; (5) THE APPELLEE NEEDED, AND OBTAINED PERMISSION FROM THE APPELLATE COURT, TO FILE A DOUBLE-PAGE LENGTH BRIEF; (6) THE APPELLANT'S JAILERS INTERFERED WITH HIS ACCESS TO BRING THE’ APPEAL BY’ PLACING HIM ON: A LEGAL REFERENCE ‘MATERIAL RESTRICTION: ‘('7)) THE: APPELLANT, WAS UNABLE TO FILE A REPLY BECAUSE. OF THE JAILERS' ACTIONS; (8) THE-APPELLANT'S JAILERS SEIZED 12" OF THE APPELLANT'S FILES FOR’ THE CASE: AND (9) THE APPELLANT'S ABILITY’ TO: RECEIVE’ REASONABLY: TIMELY SERVICE OF LEGAL MAIL WAS SOQ IMPAIRED THAT HE WAS UNABLE .TOFILE ANY REHEARING MOBION IN THE. APPEAL?