Did Respondents violate Petitioner's 14th-amendment-due-process rights

QUESTIONS PRESENTED : Pursuant to Rule 14 of Supreme Court of the United States Rules effective July 1, 2019 Preface: Petitioner reiterated his multiple complaints against Respondents throughout each of these court cases, : as referenced below. .1. As former attorneys for Petitioner Lucero, did Respondents Konciljas violate Petitioner's U.S. 14th Amendment due process rights by not investigating Plain : Petitioner’s severe, near-death work-related multiple injuries before filing a complaint in district court which complaint included all parties except for the two parties that were the ones culpable for Petitioner’s multiple injuries? ; 2. Did Respondents further violate Petitioner’s U.S. 14th Amendment rights to due process by failing to proceed with ~~ any normal legal action at all such that the Pueblo District ; Court ruled against (Petitioner) Lucero with a Notice of | ; Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute which laxness by Respondent attorney Koncilja closed the legal doors on Petitioner's efforts to seek redress for his multiple life; threatening work injuries? 3. Was Petitioner prejudiced and his due process rights repeatedly violated by Colorado state courts and U.S. : ; Federal courts when those courts did not legally notice : that Petitioner had filed a timely completed in all ways Motion for Default Judgment against Respondents, when Respondents were forty-three (43) days late in filing an initial responsive pleading to Petitioner's Amended Complaint? ii 4. Does claim preclusion and/or res judicata apply to this case at bar, which has never been at issue before or after Petitioner Lucero had hired, then removed Denver attorney Paul Gordon from the case against Konciljas since Lucero himself, proceeding pro se, has filed different, expanded complaints against Defendants? . 5. Why do higher courts not concur that Pueblo District Court Judge Crockenberg was extremely biased when he ruled 26 (twenty-six) times against Petitioner Lucero and in favor of Respondents Konciljas when, e.g., Respondents were 43 days late in answering Lucero’s Complaint against Konciljas and Petitioner therefore had filed a complete Motion for Default Judgment, but Judge Crockenberg ruled that Respondents’ 43 days lateness in answering was not late (with absolutely no excusable neglect proffered by Konciljas), also e.g., when Judge Crockenberg denied Petitioner extra time with three rulings (twice before expiration of 60 day limit!) to file a Certificate of Review against Respondents Konciljas? 6. Was it not clear that there was additional judicial bias by Federal Magistrate Judge Tafoya against Petitioner when, e.g., the judge failed repeatedly to rule for Petitioner, e-g., a.) pursuant to Civ. Procedure 4(d)(2) Motion to Recover Service Expenses against Respondents, never understood : . that it’s clearly the absolute responsibility of the Federal court to order Defendants to pay Petitioner service expenses, b.) ruled for Defendants’ overtly frivolous red herring motion to stay a ruling on Petitioner’s above motion ; for recovery until Defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) motion was decided, c.) actually illegally aided Respondents , Konciljas by changing, sua sponte, their 12(b)(1) motion to a more appropriate 12(b)(6) motion, and most significantly d.) failed to recognize, receive and rule on Petitioner's iii dispositive Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the ; ; . Pleadings, Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c)? . 7. Although there is no mention at all of the term State Actor or its synonyms in any of Petitioner’s state or federal law books, e.g., not in Hess’ Colorado Handbook on Civil ; Litigation, nor Federal Court of Appeals Manual, Sixth Edition, nor Black’s Law Dictionary, Abridged 10 Ed., can Petitioner be held legally responsible for not discussing and amending his briefs on that State Actor topic in his motions ; until after U.S. Assistant attorney Pestal [in Lucero v. U.S. : . . (V.A.)] referenced the State Actor term in court and Fe