Whether the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals abused its discretion

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. WHETHER, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Abused its discretion, erred and Deprived Petitioners of To A Fair and Just Trial/RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS by determining that Petitioners’ Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is Frivolous concluding, denying, and dismissing Petitioners’ Appeal as being Frivolous and Moot? : 2. WHETHER, the Eastern District Court’s Chief Judge erred and Abused her Discretion and deprived Petitioners a Fair and Just Trial/ RIGHT TO DUE \ PROCESS within the court by fully Adopting and Ordering the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations on July17, 2020; and Entry of Judgment on July 20, 2020? 3. WHETHER, Respondent, Uduak Inyang Oduok Abused her Discretion and violated Petitioner’s Right To A Fair and Just Trial/RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS by failing to RECUSE herself after knowing that she was a Defendant In a Federal Court Case and Petitioner previously had Filed with the Sacramento Superior Court a typed request for his Recusal? 4. WHETHER, Respondent, Superior Court Family Law Judge John Patrick Winn Abused his Discretion and violated Petitioners’ Right To A Fair Tria/RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS and Just trial by failing to RECUSE himself after knowing that he was a Defendant In a Federal Court Case that Petitioner/Carina Conerly had previously Filed in the Sacramento Superior Court a typed request for his Recusal? 1 5. WHETHER, Respondent, Superior Court Judge Olubunmi Olaide Awoniyi Abused her Discretion and violated Petitioner’s Right To A Fair and Just Trial/ RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS, after Petitioner Carina Conerly pleaded to her for the Recusal in order to disallow Petitioners’ case not to be heard, decided, ruled upon, and handled by Winn and the Judge Olubunmi Olaide Awoniyi refused? 6. WHETHER, Respondent, Sharif Roldan Tarpin violated Rules of Civil Procedures and Petitioners’ Right To A Fair and Just Trial/RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS by agreeing and taking part in interfering into Petitioners’ Family Law case to rid, distract, and stop Petitioners’ case from going forward and exercising their RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS? 7. WHETHER, the Eastern District denied Petitioners’ Requests For Default against Respondents, the denial violated Petitioners’ Right To A Fair and Just Trial/RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS? 8. WHETHER, Superior Court Family Law Judge John Patrick Winn’s Court Order Violated Petitioner Carina Conerly’s Constitutional First Amendment Right to Video in a public place and if she did video, he stated and Ordered that she could be guilty and liable for Civil and Legal Prosecution? 9. WHETHER, Superior Court Family Law Judge John Patrick Winn’s Court Order : Violated Petitioner Carina Conerly’s Constitutional 5 Amendment Rights to remain silent when he made an Order telling her what to say and specific words to say to Respondent Sharif Roldan Tarpin? 2