Would a United States Federal Court be in error, if it granted qualified immunity to a Defendant in a case, where video and/or documentary evidence, clearly proves that Defendant to have, willfully —intentionally—and deliberately committed obstruction of the investigative proceedings into his violating the constitutional rights of the Plaintiff in that particular case, in clear and direct violation of [18 U.S.C.A. 1505, 1515 (6) (b) and 1519]?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Would a United States Federal Court be in error, if it granted qualified immunity to a Defendant in a case, where video and/or documentary evidence, clearly proves that Defendant to have, willfully —intentionally—and deliberately committed obstruction of the investigative proceedings into his | violating the constitutional rights of the Plaintiff in that particular case, in clear and direct violation of [18 U.S.C.A. 1505, 1515 (6) (b) and 1519]? 2. Would a United States Federal Court be in error, if it adopted a magistrate initial scheduling order, by which granted all parties six (6) months to complete , discovery and seven (7) months to file any dispositive motions (except on the issue of exhaustion) dated October 2"! 2018. Then as defined in document # 400 dated December 4"" 2018, and clearly acknowledged by the court, that on November 20" 2018, the Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, and a motion for leave to file additional interrogatories, and the magistrate denied the Plaintiff motion for leave, without prejudice to refilling, once the court made a ruling on his proposed findings and recommendations to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim. The court then acknowledges that fourteen (14) days after filing this motion the Plaintiff, on December 34 2018 filed a motion for extension of time to file his . objections to the magistrates recommendation due to he had yet to receive the discovery he had requested from the Defendants. The court then preposterously ii : and absurdly , the very next day on 12-4-18 proclaimed that the interrogatories sought by the Plaintiff in his request for discovery, were not directed at the _ issues on which the magistrate recommended summary judgment be granted namely “Failure to exhaust administrative remedies “ and “Officer Gibson’s entitlement to qualified immunity under the facts.” When actually infact, all of the Plaintiff interrogatories that were directed and were addressed to Officer Terry Gibson, if answered would have clearly proven Officer Gibson’s willful —intentionaland deliberate obstruction of the investigative proceeding into his violating the Plaintiffs constitutional rights, in clear and direct violation of [18 U.S.C.A. 1505, 1515 (6) (b) and 1519] therefore scripting Officer Terry Gibson of any entitlement he may have had to the qualified immunity that he | was erroneously granted by the court. 3. Would a United States Federal Court be in error, if it granted Summary Judgment to the Defendant’s case, for which video evidence and documentary evidence clearly proves deliberate conspiracy and obstruction of the investigative proceedings by so-said Defendants clearly violating [18 U.S.C.A. § 241, 242, 371,1001,1346, 1505, 1515(6) (b), 1519] ii