Whether a judge's conspiracy with a private lawyer to obtain an out-of-time motion to dismiss violates due process

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Petitioner was a student at the school owned by the | Baptist churches in San Antonio named Baptist School of | Health Professions run by TENET and was studying | Diagnostic Medical Sonography. As a matter of fact, the U.S. district judge who presided over this case is also a senior youth leader of the Baptist churches in San Antonio . . which in itself is a conflict of interest and thereby bias cannot be ruled out. Furthermore, the Tenet also runs hospitals owned by Baptist churches which presents a basis for making a favorable ruling for them. In addition, due process was flouted, and the rights of the petitioner were grossly violated as outlined in the following point. The district court ordered petiton not to reference materials in original complaint when making Amended complaint but striking ameded complaint by using materials in original complaint. After the dismissal of the claims in amended complaint and when the notice of appeal was filed, the District Judge appointed an attorney on behalf of the petitioner without request or prior consultation. In turn, the district court prohibited the petitioner from filing anything with the court’s clerk without that attorny’s ; approval and simply because petitioner suggested to the Baptist Counsel to move the case to a neutral venue. 1. Whether, in light to Dennis v. Sparks et al, 100 S. Ct.(1980) #79-1186, does conspiracy involves a judge in section 1983 and 1985(2) applies to unrepresented conspirator only, not apply when a private lawyer engage in a conspiracy on behalf of a client expertly in judge's chamber to obtain out-of-time motion to dismiss and serving the out of time motion to dismiss to plaintiff after the case already dismissed, then fraudulently entered document “Plaintiff dismissed the case” and removed it upon Plaintiff request the court’s CD record is consistent with due process? Is the private lawyer not liable as well? 2. Whether in light of 28 U.S.C. 1654 and1915 (d) a US. judge who is a leader of the church that its institution is being sued can preside its case. In reaction to the . suggestion of moving the case to a neutral venue, prohibit the plaintiff from contacting the court. Immediately without consulting or requesting. the party appointing an : attorney ‘to police party's court filings is not enough a of conflict of interest and violate the party’s Sixth Amendment right? 3. Whether amended complaint that includes parental company’s name after the-original complaint was served to head of subsidiary requires separate services of the process ; to parental company under Fed.R.Cv.P 4(h) in light of this court’s opinion of “mistake of proper party identity” in . Krupski v. Costa Crociere 130 S. Ct. ...(2010)? i A CORPORATE DISCLOSURE Mr. Symon Mandawala (Petitioner) is not a . corporation PARTIES Mr. Symon Mandawala (Petitioner) v. TENET, Baptist School of Health Professions, North East Baptist Hospital, Blaine Holbrook, Nick Elgies (Respondents) STATEMENT OF