Immigration
Whether this Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus directed to the Court of appeals
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED — L Whether this Court has jurisdiction te iscve a writ of mandamus directed te the Court of appeals, On the basi$ that it has abused its discretion in declining to review de nevo, a judgment from the district court's denial of, your pro se Pet tioner’s, . Rule 60(o4) motion to set aside its judgment. oo 2. Whether a misreading of a motion, that reselt jn the use oF untrue facts, IN a ex parte Rul€ 60(b)(4) metien hearing, to make a determination to set ASAE A judgmen t, Constitute av ' . ‘Inadequate and unmeaning ful hearing Tf yes © (ad ]s an Inadequate and vAmeaning ful hearing the — Same as “ne hearing atall. Zf yes (b) If a proceeding Conducted jn the above noted manner, IS that pra ceeding conducted 1 & Manner incensistent With due process "af law. 3. Whethee court of appeal abused its dascretion by declining to review, pro Se Petitioner's, due process oF law Claim, arising after opening appeal brief was filed, and arose dur ing, district Court's erparte hearing of Avie 60 (0) (4) Motion to Set aside Judgment. . | ) 4, Whether the disteict Court abused its discretion by «+ declining to review de novo, pro se Petitioner's 42 USC 5183 amended pleadings, during district court's exparté hearing of a Rule 60(bI(4) motion te Set aside Judgment alleging district Court misreading of the amended factval Allegations Caused untrue facts to be used to conclude pro se Petitioner failed to State a Claim upon Which relief Moy be grauted, 5. Whether the question of the validity of a judgment . is @ legal one requiring de novo review. 6. Whe ther the court of appeals is required fo conduct ca ole nove Standard of review, to determine if the district court misread pro se Petitioner’s amended Complaint and used untrue facts in its determination of the Voidness of its Judgment, when a Rule 60 (b)(4) motion to Setaside judgment was properly before the district Court. 1. Whether this Court Should exercise its discretion to issue a Writ Of Manamus tothe Court of appeals. —