Did the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals err in refusing to require federal judges to disclose information relevant to disqualification?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Did the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals err when it refused to follow the unanimous holdings of the Sixth Circuit, Seventh Circuit, Eleventh Circuit and Federal Circuit that federal judges have an obligation to disclose on the record information which the parties or their lawyers might consider relevant to the question of disqualification? . 2. Do federal judges have an obligation to disclose on the record information about personal or professional relationships with a defendant or . witness in a case where such information is explicitly requested by a party? 3. Do federal judges have an obligation to disclose on the record information about their past and current relationship to a disgraced former federal judge who is a defendant in a lawsuit along with his colleagues who retaliated against a litigant ; for disclosing the former federal judge’s misconduct and whose whistleblowing played a critical role in his downfall? 4. Does the Ninth Circuit’s decision that a District Court Judge was not required to recuse himself in a case where a defendant previously was the District Court’s lawyer and defended him in state and federal court in a personal capacity, in direct conflict with published precedent from the same District and other Circuits and state courts, constitute reversible error? 5. Did the the Ninth Circuit erred in finding that Younger abstention applied to a case premised on 4 ii state court bias and conflict of interest of specific state court judges because the bias did not arise from a direct financial interest in the litigation? 6. May an interlocutory order relating to judicial ‘ recusal and disclosure be appealed in an appeal from the final judgment of dismissal for intentional refusal to serve the complaint, or must it be re-challenged by a post-judgment motion to vacate under F.R.C.P. 60? iii PARTIES TO THE CASE This petition is in respect of two related cases with different defendants. The plaintiff appellant and petitioner is CYRUS SANAI, an individual in both cases The Defendants in the first filed case, Sanai v. Staub, Central District of California no. 18-cv-02136 and Ninth Circuit no. 19-55427 are D. JOSHUA STAUB, FREDERICK BENNETT, PHU CAM NGUYEN, and CHRISTOPHER MCINTIRE, all individuals. None of them were served a summons and complaint or appeared. The Defendants and Respondents in the secondfiled case, originally filed as Sanai v. McDonnell, Central District of California no. 18-cv-05663 and Ninth Circuit no. 19-55429 are Los Angeles County Sheriff JAMES MCDONNELL and Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge MARK BORENSTEIN in their individual and official capacities. During the litigation McDonnell lost an election and was at the request of Sanai dismissed without prejudice. See App. B.