Whether a writ of certiorari is appropriate due to the district court's failure to establish and stay within its limited jurisdictional authority

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Federal courts are ones of limited jurisdiction. In February 2020 Petitioner brought complaint in D.C. Superior Court against IBRD for D.C. law. violations. IBRD removed the case to federal court, next moving to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner moved to remand. On March 25, 2021 the district court, stating it acted without removal jurisdiction, denied both motions, retaining Petitioner’s action without filings or remedy, effectively disposing of the state law case. It next refused to certify an interlocutory appeal. Petitioner approached the court of appeals for extraordinary writ, noting the district court’s order is void for lack of jurisdiction, abuse of lawful authority and abuse of discretion, and violation of her Constitutional right to procedural due process. The court of appeals denied the petition stating the district court may determine removal jurisdiction based on later filings on unconnected grounds. . Certiorari is sought because the lower two courts’ failure to follow the law here undermines the , bedrock core principle of the judicial system, jurisdictional limits, frustrating | Congress’s determination and their own purpose, creating new legal rights by exercising judicial authority they lack. These courts’ also ignore existing federal caselaw and their own prior consistent decisions. The questions presented are: 1. Whether a writ of certiorari is appropriate : because, contrary to the denial of mandamus and 1 ii prohibition by the court of appeals and its holding, the district court’s order resulted from failure to carry out its federal judicial duty to establish, and stay within, its limited jurisdictional authority, and is clear and indisputable legal error, requiring issuance of the requested writs, or determination that the order was void, and that the federal courts lack jurisdiction over the Petitioner’s state law action. 2. Whether writ of certiorari is required because the court of appeals erred in failing to issue writ of mandamus or prohibition to correct, and restrain, the district court’s abuse of its powers, and abuse of its discretion, in violation of procedural due process and the Petitioner’s Constitutional rights at law. 3. Whether certiorari is appropriate to correct the failure to consider mandamus requested for’ the district court’s clear abuse of discretion in refusing ; to certify its order for interlocutory appeal. 1 iii