Must a district court decide a motion based on those judicial inquiries framed by the movant and his adversaries by applying the legal contentions of the adverse parties to those facts the district court finds to exist based on the parties' presentations?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Recently this Court has reminded judges that federal courts are based on the adversary system of justice. “That is, we rely on the parties to frame the issues for decision and assign to courts the role of neutral arbiter of the matters the parties present.” Unfortunately, the Ninth Circuit continues to have difficulty applying this principle; both as one governing its own decision-making with regard to issues which are appropriate for decision on appeal and as to the standard of review which should be applied to a trial court’s exercise of judicial power. This case presents the following issues: 1. Must a district court decide a motion based on those judicial inquiries framed by the movant and his adversaries by applying the legal contentions of the adverse parties to those facts the district court finds to exist based on the parties’ presentations? 2. Whether structural aspects of our constitutional government required a district court to consider an attorney’s contentions that he is entitled to withdraw from a case or obtain an indefinite continuance to respond to a Motion to Dismiss based on his State’s emergency regulations applicable to COVID-19, his susceptibility to that infection, and his inability to competently represent his client without such a delay?