Question not identified

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW QUESTION (a) . What is the remedy available, if district judge never ruled upon the prejudgment (Ecf.107,110,132-1) 18 U.S.C.S. § 3599(e) pro se Motions to substitute habeas counsel (college, law school, family friend of judge) and post-judgment (Ecf.158,162, 169, 170, 177) 18 U.S.C.S. § 3599(e) pro se Motions to substitute counsels and Objections to illegal magistrate judge striking notations and prematurely dismissing the capital habeas case 2:07-cv-658, (Ecf.156,194) without adjudicating all exhausted claims in record and all pending motions (Ecf.196, filed on 06/03/21 per FRAP 3(d)(2)& FRAP 4(c)(1)). QUESTION (b) ; Court of Appeals erroneously decline jurisdiction to review the district court judicial decision to avoid explicit rulings on pre-judgment 18 U.S.C.S. § 3599(e) pro se Motions (Ecf.107,110, 132-1), and post-judgment 18 U.S.C.S. § 3599(e) pro se Motions (Ecf.158, 162, 169, 170,177). When appellate jurisdiction existed per 28 U.S.C. § 1291 that ( the determination of a motion need not always be expressed but may be implied by an entry of an order inconsistent with granting the relief sought”. Or entry of final judgment constitutes an implicit denial of pending motions”. QUESTION (c) Court caused “Denial 5 Appeal Counsel”. The Court of appeals failed to appoint conflictfree appeal counsels, per(18 USCS 3006A(d\(7)) 18 U.S.C.S. § 3599(e) and 6" Cir. Rule 45(a)(5), and [ 28 U.S.C. A. § 2254(h), as none filed an appearance, and Letters to Clerk and . . = pro se motions for appointment of appeal counsels marked RECEIVED, were never ruled upon. (in appeal cases 20-4187, 21-3095, 20-4302, 22-3039 and 20-4153 the First jurisdictionally valid Appeal case.). Petitioner had no recourse under (18 USCS 3006A(d)(7)) to file timely petitions due to his ADA disability, emergency hospitalization and quarantines and un-operated cataract limited eye-sight and by CCI mail Staff for filing grievance. ; QUESTION (d) NO ERROR OF CLERK CAN AFFECT REVIEW, by petition for writ of certiorari: The omission of the clerk of court of appeals [or of Supreme Court ] could not devest the party of the enjoyment of his legal right to appeal [or review by Cert Petition]. Cf. Hudgins v. Kemp, 59 U.S. 530(1856) (-no error of clerk can affect right of appeal. --). ERRORS OF newly hired, untrained, unsupervised deputy Clerk Susan Frimpong not knowing the filing of procedural Orders filed on March 20,20 and April 15,20 and July 19,21 and not knowing the workings of Rule 29.1 and 29.5 and her not forwarding the “timely, good faith Submission” to the Circuit Justice per Rule 22.1,and Rule 22.3 “extension of time by sixty days per 28 U.S.C. § 2101(c)” have rendered the petitioner’s right to discretionary review by Certiorari as permanently denied, in sixth Cir. Appeal cases 20-4187 and 21-3095 and for her not applying the correct rules based analysis and her failure to issue Rule 14.5, “Letter “. ; il