Whether the Second Circuit violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments by dismissing the appeal without ruling on the reasonable accommodation request

QUESTION PRESENTED I. | Whether the Second Circuit on January 3, 2020 violated the law by fifth and fourteenth Amendment by dismissing the appeal without ruling on the reasonable accommodation request to appoint a lawyer for Jane Doe who cannot read or write at all due to autism. For six years the district court and the circuits is related cases have force me an autistic American to act as a lawyer for a severely autistic America whose autism prevents her from reading and writing at all. With supporting medical records. Whether district court and the second circuit can violate the Americans with Disabilities Act severely autistic American who disability prevent her from reading and writing which have already confirmed as a fact by medical records provided to the court to received reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act to prove Jane Doe’s predictable assessments_§ 35.108 (2) iii. (C\E)(K). Whether it lawful for the district court and the second circuit to force a family member who also has . developmental § 35.108 (2) ili. (C)(E)(K disabilities to act as a lawyer for severely predictable assessments § 35.108 (2) iii. (C)(E)(K) that prevents her from reading and writing at all. | have won six circuit appeals proven discrimination in the district court against people with autism however the district court and the second circuit is still forcing me to act as a lawyer for an autistic American without any accommodations. Il. Whether the District Court of Connecticut and violated the Civil Justice Reform Act by not reporter outstanding motions for over a year. When the Civil Justice Reform Act : requires the District Court to report all motions pending more than six months, all bench trials submitted more than six months, all bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months, all Social Security appeal cases pending more than six months. Not only did the , district court fail to report this case to the justice department’s Administrative Office but We encourage attorneys who want to help contact or complete an intake form at or call 202.900.8855 help us end ableism in the civil federal court system. @ the district court also failed to report all pro se cases in Connecticut from 2012-2019. (with the exception of pro se who have law degrees.) . Ill. Whether the second circuit and the district court acted more as a defense counsel than a neutral arbitrator as required by federal rules of civil appellate procedure. The district court granted to proceed in forma pauperis in 28 U.S. Code § 1915 on April 26, 2018; however the district court failed to serve the defendants in violations of "28 U.S, Code § 1915 (d) "the officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and perform all duties in such cases.” Or whether a district court and the second circuit need not provide a justifying reason when denying a pro se litigant serves of the defendant the United States. The District of Connecticut Court has targeted discriminated against poor pro se in civil rights enforcement lawsuit as confirmed by the second circuit related case 16-3074 on January 18, 2018, where the district court of Connecticut never served the defendant City of Hartford. The judges' signatures don't appear on the decision, which has an automated signature and stamp of Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe. Clerk Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, never made a brief schedule nor did the defendant write an answer to the brief. : Nor did the court address the allegations of the district court violating basic federal rules of civil procedure or Americans with Disabilities act status; therefore discriminating against the pro se litigants due to race, class, and disability (autism). IV. Whether the District Court had a legal duty to "assumes the truth" of the complaint's allegations and "construes the complaint liberally, granting the plaintiffs 'the benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged.'" Am. Nat'lIns. Co. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 64