Do federal courts have authority to alter the plain meaning of a state or municipal law?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED : 1. Do federal courts have legal authority to alter : or amend the plain: meaning of a lawfully-enacted statute of a sovereign state or a lawfully-enacted : . ; ordinance of a sovereign municipality that were an . ; exercise of the state or municipality’s police powers? , ; ’ Issue Reserved on Remand if Court Rules for _ , Petitioner on Question 1 _ ; A. Did the City of Toledo’s (“Respondent”) : ordinance (TMC § 313.12) and’ hearing (“Hearing”), under color of law, : : unconstitutionally force Patrick J. Downey : ‘ (“Petitioner”) to choose between exercising his : right to due process of law under the : oo, Fourteenth Amendment and his right against . self-incrimination under the Fifth : Amendment? —, 2. Did Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981) : : provide legal authority for the circuit court to enter ; judgment against. Petitioner, a non-prisoner plaintiff, : ; for failing to exhaust state court remedies when , Petitioner’s Declaratory Judgment Act complaint oO alleged violations of his right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 United States Code (“USC”) § 1983? . : : “Issue Reserved on Remand if Court Rules for . . Petitioner on Questions 1 & 2 A. Did Respondent, under color of law, violate Petitioner’s right to due process of law : . under the Fourteenth Amendment: by _ assessing penalties against Petitioner when ; : _ TMC § 313.12 did not provide it with legal . : , , authority to operate a civil traffic enforcement . ; program that deployed police officers operating : . mobile cameras and its program exceeded its oo, Home Rule authority under Ohio's : ; Constitution? ‘ : : : Issues Reserved on Remand if Court Rules for : Petitioner on Question 2 A. Did Respondent, under color of law, , : violate Petitioner’s right to due process of law ; by assessing an additional penalty under TMC . : §313.12(d)(5) when the penalty, under the facts presented, was not authorized by its ordinance, ' which Respondent admitted in its appellate brief? ; ; ; B. Would Respondent, under color of law, : . violate Petitioner’s right to due. process of law by towing or immobilizing his vehicle when the ; . action, under the facts presented, was not : authorized by its ordinance, which Respondent ‘ admitted in its appellate brief? C. Did the Hearing provided by Respondent under TMC § 313.12 violate, under color of law, . ii ; Petitioner’s right to procedural due process of , ; ; law? : , . , 3. In light of Respondent’s admission that it did . not have legal authority to take the actions complained of in the third and .fourth issues of : ; _ Petitioner’s declaratory judgment action, did the : circuit court have legal authority to grant judgment to Respondent on those issues? ; iii : . 7 Il.