Was the petitioner denied equal protection under the 14th Amendment?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW not The courts have no authority to arbitrarily ' impose a misapplication of a legal doctrine to an : action in equity. This elliptical action leads to incorrect results in classification of actions. None of the extraordinary powers of a court of equity are ; required in order to give relief sought. In classifying an action as legal or equitable, the court should look / ; to its substance, ie. to the nature of the right ; involved and the demand for remedy sought. Rights are such as belonging to every citizen of the United States by the United States Constitution. Nowhere in the document filed with the ; District court, Request For An Injunction, Pursuant ' to 28 USC 8§1367(a0, 1657(a), 1746, and FRCP Rule 65(d) and Applicable Provisions of Rule 52(a)(b)(c), was a demand for damages only equitable relief was stated. : The Appellate Memorandum apparently was , conceived upon bias and prejudice, as if to say that ; acting for oneself, somehow diminishes the United ; States or California Constitutional guarantees. ; Was Petitioner denied under the Equal Protection Clause, the 14% Amendment guarantee : that the government must treat a person or class of ; ; persons the same as other persons or classes in like: Oe circumstances? The ground for equitable relief among others is intrinsic and extrinsic fraud by preventing a fair adversary proceeding, which cannot be enforced. . See, Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970): United . States v. Throckmorton (1878) 98 U.S. 61, 25 L.Ed. 93. ; LIST OF PROCEEDINGS : United State District Court, of Equity Jurisdiction, Case No. 8:19-cv-02110-JLS, Request . for Injunction, 28 USC 881367(a), 1657(a), and 1746, FRCP 65(a), and applicable provisions of Rule 52(a)(b)(c). Date of Opinion, November 18, 2019. United State Court of Appeals, for the Ninth ‘ Circuit, 19-56360,-City of Dana Point, Memorandum, : Date of Order, November 3, 2020. ;