Did the district court and the Ninth Circuit abuse their discretion by not allowing Petitioner to argue that the behavior of the Commission on Judicial Performance and California State Bar's disciplinary proceedings against petitioner constitute sufficient state action to defeat a Motion to Dismiss?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner’s First Amended Complaint (FAC) challenged California’s antiJewish policy which arose from the interpretation of California State Constitution Article VI Section that judges may use their anti-Jewish bias in controlling their courtrooms. Judges may exclude Jews from hearings such as side bars, and judges may ignore and alter evidence offered by Jews. Thereafter, other state agencies enforce the anti-Jewish policy such as the State Bar which is enforcing the policy against Petitioner. California’s discriminatory policy logically allows similar treatment of any group when a judge dislikes an. attorney’s or a litigant’s race, creed, religion, color, national origin, etc. | Petitioner filed suit in District Court of Central District of California in order to challenge the constitutionality of California’s policy. The questions presented are: | 1. Did the district court and the Ninth Circuit abuse their discretion by not allowing Petitioner to even argue that the behavior of the Commission on Judicial Performance and California State Bar’s disciplinary proceedings against petitioner constitute sufficient state action for petitioner to defeat a Motion to Dismiss? 2. Did the district court and the Ninth Circuit abuse their discretion by not allowing Petitioner to even argue that the foreseeable behavior of state _ agencies posed a sufficient risk to individuals’ civil rights so as to constitute sufficient state action for petitioner to defeat a Motion to Dismiss?