Question not identified

No question identified. : | QUESTIONS(S) PRESENTED 1. Whether the District court and Ninth Circuit violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the due process clause for equal protection by failing to address and apply (42 U.S.C Section 1981) for Petitioner’s (Fourth Cause of Action) she sufficiently pleaded as a motivating factor and her causes of actions that may arise from Section 1981, that establish requirements for a prima facie case of race discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, emotional distress and public policy? ; 2. Whether the District court and Ninth Circuit may decline to follow this Court’s ruling decisions to deny Petitioner’s right to prevail on Petitioner’s claims when applying, Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, U.S. Supreme No 84-1979, June (1986) and CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, 128 S. Ct. 1951 (2008) and hold to Minarsky v. Susquehanna County, 3'¢ Cir., No. 17-2646 (2018) and 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, for reporting her claims after the employee termination? Whether CBOCS West, Inc. y. Humphries, 128 S. Ct. 1951 (2008) construed to include an employee right to prevail on such claims, and or should CBOS v Humphries be revised to include such employee’s rights? 3. Has the Circuit Clerk violated the FRAP and Cannons for court Clerks and therefore violating Petitioner’s rights listed in The 14th Amendment for procedural due process, by deleted or instructing to delete, in Pacer the Respondent’s docketed Response Brief and attachments that were electronically filed by the Respondent and then the Clerk uploads [or instruct to upload] as pdf files the Respondent’s ‘new and different’ Response Brief and attachments after the deadline date .and ‘new and different? documents that were never served on Petitioner showing : impartially? 4. Whether the District Court and Ninth Circuit shown judicial bias by ; violating Petitioner’s constitutional and civil rights and deprived Petitioner of a property interest that the Constitution requires that Petitioner be afforded adequate due process for all Petitioner’s claims? 5 5. Whether the Ninth Circuit’s abuse of its power of discretion and showing of impartially violated FRAP, The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment by ruling on Petitioner’s case when she had not been served with the Respondent “new and different” Response Brief and attachments? 6. Whether the Ninth circuit abused it power of authority to not make a ruling on Petitioner Judicial Misconduct Complaint against the District Judge and clerk before ruling against Petitioner? 7. Did the Ninth Circuit show judicial bias and violate Petitioner’s constitutional rights, FRAP, The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to ignore Petitioner’s Motion and Request to be granted free PACER Access as a low-income pro se in forma pauperis litigant? 8. Did the Ninth Circuit disregarded the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision as precedence for Mclane Co vs. EEOC ruling for review in De Novo and “abuse its discretion” showing judicial bias in deciding the proper review standard as “de novo”, producing a MEMORANDUM that skimmed the surface of the facts of the case which holds civil, criminal and constitutional violations by the District court and clerk, Ninth Cirouit court and Clerk, in addition to judicial violations by CRC, the Respondent? 9. Whether the Ninth Circuit abused its authority by allowing the District court to accept Respondent’s new and additional Discovery evidence passed the deadline date for filing Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment, violating Petitioner’s constitutional rights showing impartially? 10. Whether the Ninth Circuit may decline to follow its own decision that establishes a precedent for low-income litigants in Stanley v. University of Southern California, 178 F .3d 1069, 1079 (9 Cir. 1999) and other , supporting cases which forbids courts to impose improper and unduly burdensome on such litigants with the inability to pay Respondent’s bill of cost? 11. Did the Ninth Circuit violat