Did the lower courts commit Equal Protection or FEHA violations?

Questions Presented : a : , 1.) Did Los Angeles' Central District of California Court or The Ninth Cir. Ct. of Appeals, commit an Equal Protection Under The Law violation or California's FEHA violation(s) or directly related Ninth Cir. Ct. case decision conflict, when ; neither court supported their complete preemption decisions, using the Ninth Cir. : : Ct. 2007 Burnside v. Kewit's twosteps judicial (substantial) test, to support the courts’ . substantially dependent complete preemption decisions ? oe . 2.) Did Los Angeles' Central District of California Court or TheNinth Cir. Ct. . of Appeals, commit an Equal Protection Under The Law violation or California's FEHA violation(s). or directly related subject matter jurisdiction conflicts, when : both flower courts affirmed the state-court removal decision. These lower courts, subject matter jurisdictions decisions, are in direct conflicts with respondent's failed removal motion statutes, used to remove petitioner claim from Los Angeles' Superior Court ? 3.) Do a federal question, presented ‘on the face of a properly pleaded plaintiff complaint, automatically awards subject matter jurisdiction, to a district court, to decide the merits of plaintiff complaint, when the complaint face ‘ . federal question qualifier (Breach of Employment Contract Duty), is legally proven . to be a state law claim, an Equal Protection Under The Law ‘violation or. California's FEHA violation(s) ? , 4.) Did Los Angeles' Central District of California Court or The Ninth Cir. Ct. of Appeals, created a conflict against 28 U.S.C § 1447(c), when neither court granted plaintiff numerous,. informal written requests, to remand plaintiff's complaint '‘back' to Los Angeles Superior Court, violates plaintiff's Equal Protection Under The Law or. California's FEHA violation(s) ? 5.) Did The Ninth Cir. Ct. of Appeals, commit an Equal Protection Under The Law violation or California's FEHA violation(s), when the court denied appellant : request for public counsel, based solely on appellant's Los Angeles District Court In Forma Pauperis status ? ‘ : : 6.) Did Los Angeles' Central: District of California Court or The Ninth Cir. Ct. of Appeals, commit an Equal Protection Under The Law violation or California's FEHA violation(s), when neither court, addressed. plaintiff numerous, informal, written requests, alleging Breach of Fair Representative Duty against plaintiff's ; labor union ? 7.)Did Los Angeles County 2018 Pro Per litigants (including petitioner), had their Summary Judgement Opposition motions, affected, by. Los Angeles federal Pro Se Clinic (Los Angeles’ Public Counsel), unexpectedly ten(10) plus weeks closure, with zero or extremely limited alternative communication available options, between , Los Angeles County 2018 Pro Per litigants and Los Angeles Federal Pro Se : Clinic, Public Counsel, an Equal Protection Under The Law violation or California's FEHA violation(s) ? 8.)Did Los Angeles’ Central District of California Court or The Ninth Cir. Ct. . : ‘of Appeals, commit an Equal Protection Under The Law violation or California's FEHA violation(s), when neither court addressed plaintiff, informal, written allegations, in mumerous court records, alleging committed, a : Breach of Employment Contract Duty violation, against plaintiff employment rights . ? 9.)Did Los Angeles' Central District of California Court or The Ninth Cir. Ct. : of Appeals, commit a Breach Of The Implied Covenant Of Good Faith And Fair Dealing Duty or California's FEHA violation(s), .when the lower courts failed, to fully or completely, addressed plaintiff's complaint issues in the lower courts decisions ? . . 10.) Did Los -Angeles' Central District of California Court or The Ninth Cir. Ct. . of Appeals, committed an Equal Protection Under The Law violation or ; . California's FEHA violation(s), when neither court fulfill plaintiff request for a written and video copy of his September 13, 2017 deposition transcript ?