Whether a state court's dismissal order, absent clear languages about the legal effects, and its further refusal to clarify — which has led to four years' appellate litigations violate notice requirement of procedural due process as set out in the Fourteenth Amendments' Due Process Clause?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Under Due process, adequate notice must be given to the affected parties. The current petition and the. underlying four-years’ appellate litigation are results of Washington courts’ refusal to clarify an ambiguous order about whether minor, J.L. was bound to the dismissal order or whether the dismissal to the minor was without prejudice. ‘ Petitioner pro se filed a lawsuit, mistakenly added J.L’s name but quickly informed the court that she ; cannot represent minor in court as non-attorney. A Washington state court judge dismissed the action upon Defendants’ pre-discovery motion for ; | summary judgment announcing the lack of personal | jurisdiction over defendants due to the plaintiffs’ | defective service. The order was silent as to whether | it was with or without prejudice as to the unrepresented minor plaintiffs (“2017 Order”). The Chief Judge expressed his intent to vacate the ambiguous order, reasoning that a dismissal without prejudice was the limit that a court lacking jurisdiction could act and that parties are entitled to a clear judgment (“2019 Intent”) — the Order has not : yet been formally entered. Defendants appealed the court’s intent. The : Washington Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the Chief Judge abuses the discretion to resolve the jurisdictional challenge, opined that the Court has no obligation to first determine whether } or not it has jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals | disagreed with chief judge and ordered the indigent | Petitioner (Respondent on appeal) to pay appellate ii costs and fees to the appeal initiated by the Respondents (Appellants on appeal). 1. Whether a state court’s dismissal order, absent clear languages about the legal effects; and its further refusal to clarify — which has led to four years’ appellate litigations violate notice : requirement of procedural due process as set out in the Fourteenth Amendments’ Due Process Clause? 2. Whether the Court has authority to further rule on the merits of the claims and dismiss the unrepresented children’s claims, after it has : announced lacking personal jurisdiction over defendants. 3. Whether the Court has personal jurisdiction over a disabled minor who was unrepresented by legal lawyer and guardian ad litem — while ail federal circuits dismissed the unrepresented minors’ ; claims without prejudice because pro se parents : are not permitted to represented minors in both federal and state courts. 28 U. S. C. § 1654; RCW 2.48.180. 4, Whether the Court is under the duty to first resolve the jurisdictional issue before ruling on the merits of the case. 5. Whether it is unconstitutional for the state Court to impose legal financial sanction upon the : passive indigent Respondents who were forced to respond to the interlocutory appeal — if any : appellate costs completely occurred by the appellants themselves. iii TABLES OF CONTENTS STATUTORY PROVISION INVOLVED .ccceecetetereee REASON FOR GRANTING THE PETITION . ee 18 , L The Court Must Resolve The Jurisdiction Defects Whenever Comes To Light.14 II. This Case Is An Appropriate Vehicle For , Deciding This Important Constitution } Question Related to Due Process Rights.19 | A. The Ambiguous Order Itself Is A Due Process | Violation... LQ B. The Trial Judge’s Failure To Recuse Is A Due Process